Preamble

[Mr. SPEAKER in the Chair]

INDIA (GOVERNORS' ALLOWANCES AND PRIVILEGES) (AMENDMENT) ORDER.

The VICE-CHAMBERLAIN OF THE HOUSEHOLD (Mr. BOULTON) reported His Majesty's Answer to the Address as followeth:

I have received your Address praying that the Government of India (Governors' Allowances and Privileges) (Amendment) Order, 1943, be made in the form of the Draft laid before Parliament.

I will comply with your request.

DEATH OF A MEMBER

Mr. SPEAKER made the following communication to the House:

I regret to have to inform the House of the death of William George Howard Gritten, Esquire, Member for the Borough of The Hartlepools, and I desire, on behalf of the House, to express our sense of the loss we have sustained and our sympathy with the relatives of the honourable Member.

PRIVATE BUSINESS

LIVERPOOL HYDRAULIC POWER BILL [Lords]

As amended, considered; to be read the Third time.

Oral Answers to Questions — TRADE AND COMMERCE

Concentration of Industry

Mr. Wootton-Davies: asked the President of the Board of Trade whether he will consider taking steps to prevent the entrance into concentrated industries of new manufacturers until such time as concentrated firms have been enabled to re-

start their plants and reorganise their pre-war activities?

The President of the Board of Trade (Mr. Dalton): I would refer my hon. Friend to paragraph 3 of Command Paper 6258 of March, 1941, and also to the statement made in this House on 27th March, 1941, by my right hon. Friend the Minister of Production—who was then President of the Board of Trade—a copy of which I am sending him.

Mr. Gallacher: Is the Minister aware that he is now being asked to put a curb on private enterprise?

Manufacturers' Substitutes

Mr. Wootton-Davies: asked the President of the Board of Trade whether he will take steps to make it illegal for manufacturers to offer a substitute for a rationed article unless it has first been approved by his Ministry?

Mr. Dalton: I do not know what substitutes my hon. Friend has in mind, but, if he will let me have particulars, I will be glad to consider whether any action is necessary.

New Suits (Pockets)

Sir Percy Hurd: asked the President of the Board of Trade whether it is by his direction that officials of his Department are requiring the public, when ordering new suits, to state the uses to which coat, waistcoat and hip pockets in trousers are to be applied; and whether he will leave these matters to the discretion of the wearers?

Mr. Dalton: My hon. Friend has been misinformed. The present restrictions on the number of pockets are part of the regulations applied since May, 1942, in order to save material and labour. Where new suits are made with the permitted number of pockets, no inquiries as to the use of these are necessary, and none are made. Applications for additional pockets for special reasons are, however, sometimes made to my Department, and, before granting permission, it is the duty of my officers to satisfy themselves that the application is justified.

Sir P. Hurd: Does the right hon. Gentleman not realise that this sort of thing brings his Department into public ridicule?

Mr. Dalton: No, Sir. I have told my hon. Friend that he is misinformed in making the statement for which he takes responsibility. I have read a certain weekly newspaper, not always uniformly truthful, from which I think he derives his information. That information is inaccurate.

Sir P. Hurd: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the full text of the Board of Trade's letter was published in that journal?

Mr. Dalton: Yes, Sir, but the point I have been endeavouring to make clear is that such inquiries are made only in exceptional cases. The suggestion conveyed in this newspaper was that they are always made. I will give an illustration of the sort of exception that is made. Supposing that my hon. Friend were to lose his hearing, and wished to carry a deaf-aid on his person, it would be perfectly proper—and this often happens—for an application to be made to the Board of Trade for a special licence for an additional pocket in the waistcoat, to carry the instrument in. That is a perfectly good example.

Textile Machinery

Mr. Rhys Davies: asked the President of the Board of Trade the total value of textile machinery rendered idle by war conditions and exported to foreign countries; the countries of destination; and whether he is considering the effects of this on post-war employment in the Lancashire cotton industry in particular?

Mr. Dalton: There have been no exports of textile machinery rendered idle as a result of the concentration of the cotton industry.

Alarm Clocks

Mr. Daggar: asked the President of the Board of Trade whether he is aware of the difficulty experienced by mine-workers in the purchase of alarm clocks, upon which they rely in the mornings; and, in view of the importance of absenteeism regarding the production of coal, whether he will take action to provide a supply of these clocks in mining areas?

Mr. Dalton: As I informed my hon. Friend the Member for Everton (Mr. Kirby) on 19th January last, before the war nearly all our alarm clocks were imported. I am glad to say that arrangements have now been made, with the aid

of my right hon. and gallant Friend the Minister Resident in Washington for Supply, for limited supplies to be imported from North America. I am considering, in consultation with other Departments concerned and also with the Trades Union Congress, the best methods of distribution.

Mr. R. J. Taylor: Will regard be had in the distribution of these clocks to industries where men start work at one or two o'clock in the morning?

Mr. Dalton: Yes, Sir, it is quite clear that in some industries the need is greater than in others. It is in order to get the best distribution of supplies that I am having these consultations.

Sir Granville Gibson: Have any supplies reached this country? Some months ago the right hon. Gentleman said that arrangements had then been made for imports of such clocks.

Mr. Dalton: A first instalment of some 10,000 United States clocks is now on the way.

Mr. Murray: Is my right hon. Friend aware that in many of these districts where the old-fashioned idea of the caller-up is not in existence at present, that makes the demand for alarm clocks greater?

Mr. Dalton: Yes, Sir, I appreciate that.

Six-Valve Wireless Sets (Price)

Mr. Turton: asked the President of the Board of Trade the average price of six-valve wireless sets in Cairo and London, respectively?

Mr. Dalton: I am informed that the average price, including Purchase Tax, of six-valve wireless sets in London is about £16. I have no information about the price of such sets in Cairo.

Mr. Turton: Would my right hon. Friend make the necessary investigations to see what price the troops are having to pay in Cairo? I believe it is something like 100 per cent. in excess of the English price.

Mr. Dalton: My hon. Friend will appreciate that I have no jurisdiction to fix prices in Cairo.

Matches

Sir Irving Albery: asked the President of the Board of Trade whether there is available an adequate supply of


matches; and what steps have been taken to ensure a fair distribution to householders?

Mr. Dalton: Supplies of matches have been maintained at the present level for some time and are, I think, generally sufficient to meet requirements. Supplies to dealers are based on pre-war distribution, modified in accordance with movements of population.

Sir I. Albery: What redress has a householder if the retailer he is registered with says that he cannot supply him?

Mr. Dalton: He can go to another retailer.

Socks, Shirts and Pullovers (Home Guard)

Mr. Murray: asked the President of the Board of Trade whether he will consider the question of making a supply of socks, shirts and pullovers available for the Home Guard; and, if this is not possible, will he consider an issue of extra coupons for the said articles?

Mr. Dalton: Essential uniform, including battledress, greatcoat and boots, is already issued coupon-free by the War Office to Home Guards who are not compelled to purchase special shirts, socks or pullovers for military use. I regret, therefore, that in view of the increasing stringency of supplies, I cannot justify a coupon-free supply, or an issue of coupons for these articles.

Mr. Murray: While thanking my right hon. Friend for his answer, might I ask whether he is aware that in many cases lads in the Home Guard are using up their socks very quickly, and that this creates a great disturbance in the home in regard to the supply of socks?

Mr. Dalton: I should be extremely glad to do anything to ease the position, but here, as elsewhere, I am up against a shortage of supplies. The Home Guard do get from the War Office their uniforms, coupon free, which is a great assistance to the household wardrobe.

Mr. Driberg: Will the right hon. gentleman bear in mind that the boots which he mentioned as being coupon free are the very things which wear the socks out more quickly?

Major-General Sir Alfred Knox: Will the right hon. Gentleman see what can be done about getting an issue of free socks?

Oral Answers to Questions — BRITISH PRISONERS OF WAR

General Sir George Jeffreys: asked the Secretary of State for War whether he has received any official information on the German plan to transfer British war prisoners to Russian prison camps?

The Secretary of State for War (Sir James Grigg): No, Sir. The rumour to which my hon. and gallant Friend is alluding was mentioned in a broadcast from a French station, which stated that, according to an Italian newspaper, the correspondent of a Swedish newspaper stationed in Berlin had reported that such a transfer was thought to be likely in what are described as "usually well-informed German circles."

Sir G. Jeffreys: Is it hot a fact that this Paris broadcasting station is under the orders of the Germans, and is it not also a fact that the same statement was published in a German-controlled Paris newspaper?

Sir J. Grigg: I am very grateful to my hon. and gallant Friend for the information, but my answer is the same. I have no information beyond that to which he refers.

Sir A. Knox: asked the Secretary of State for War whether he will ask the Protecting Power to inquire into conditions in Camp P.G.5 in Italy, where prisoners of war are only permitted to exercise in a small courtyard for a few minutes daily?

Sir J. Grigg: This camp was last visited by a representative of the Protecting Power in January of this year. The reports received confirm that the facilities for exercise are not satisfactory although they have improved and are not as deficient as my hon. and gallant Friend suggests. Prisoners have unrestricted access to two small courtyards of 600 and 900 square yards from reveille to 2 p.m. and between 4 p.m. and 7 p.m. During the autumn walking parties for about 12 officers were arranged twice or three times a week and the Italian Government have ordered a playing field to be prepared. Representations were made by


the Protecting Power direct to the Italian authorities in addition to the protest through diplomatic channels to which I referred on 6th October last.

Sir A. Knox: Is my right hon. Friend aware that I have had a letter from a prisoner in that camp who says that he has only been allowed to go for one walk in the eight months during which he has been there and that other conditions in that camp are disgraceful; that it is a converted prison, that the prisoners are confined in cells; that the chief article of food is cabbage and that the sanitary arrangements are disgraceful?

Sir J. Grigg: As I said in my answer, not having in my mind all the horrible details to which my hon. and gallant Friend has referred, the conditions are not satisfactory, and representations have been made through the Protecting Power.

Mr. Bellenger: Is it not the duty of the War Office to look after our prisoners of war without waiting for questions like this to be brought to their attention?

Sir J. Grigg: That has been done constantly, and I do not know what the hon. Member means by saying that it is not. The War Office are extremely anxious and careful to do everything they possibly can for the welfare of our prisoners.

Viscountess Astor: Is it not true that His Holiness the Pope was supposed to look after our prisoners in Italy, and could we not ask our representative at the Vatican to look into the matter?

Sir William Davison: Can my right hon. Friend say what is the result of the inquiries into statements made by repatriated men in Cairo that the feeding was disgraceful and contrary to the Geneva Convention?

Sir A. Knox: asked the Secretary of State for War whether he is aware that a charge of lire 8.60 per day with retrospective effect from 1st July, 1942, is being imposed for the hire of furniture and cutlery on the 162 officers in Camp P.G.5; that this charge amounts to £560 per month at lire 72 to the £, being more than the original value of the articles; whether these charges are reciprocal to charges imposed on Italian prisoners of war in Britain; and whether he will make inquiries through the Protecting Power?

Sir J. Grigg: I cannot at present add anything to the reply I gave to my hon. Friend the Member for Cambridge University (Prof. A. V. Hill) on 16th February. The question has been taken up with the Protecting Power.

Sir. A. Knox: Is this charge similar to any charge imposed on Italian prisoners in this country?

Sir J. Grigg: I would rather not answer that question without notice. I do not think so, but I would not like to be committed.

Sir A. Knox: Would my right hon. Friend be able to give an answer next week if I put down another Question?

Sir J. Grigg: I will give an answer before then; I will send my hon. and gallant Friend the answer.

Oral Answers to Questions — BRITISH ARMY

Court-Martial Sentence

The following Question stood upon the Order Paper in the name of Sir JOHN WARDLAW-MILNE:

13. To ask the Secretary of State for War whether he will reconsider the decision of the Military Court regarding W. C. Wood, paymaster of a certain detachment, Royal Army Pay Corps, who was dismissed the service as a result of a court-martial held on 2nd September, 1942, in view of the fact that this officer, although arrested on a charge relating to 22nd July, 1942, was tried on one relating to the 18th of that month; that the charge of 22nd July was dropped; that the accused, was ordered to be examined by a civilian medical practitioner although three medical boards had graded him permanently in category C; that the summary of evidence was taken when the defendant could not call witnesses; that the course that Lieutenant Wood began and subsequently discontinued was voluntary and no action was taken against absentees; and that the trial generally was conducted in an unsatisfactory manner?

Mr. Speaker: I think hon. Members have been asked to try to keep Questions down to 10 lines, as far as possible. This one covers 12 lines.

Sir J. Wardlaw-Milne: This is one of the few Questions, Sir, which I think


could not be put in shorter terms, to give the right hon. Gentleman a chance of answering it.

Sir J. Grigg: The proceedings of the court-martial have been carefully reviewed, and I am advised that the trial was conducted fairly according to law. I see no reason for reconsideration. The answer to the first five parts of my hon. Friend's Question is necessarily rather long, and I will, with his permission, circulate it in the OFFICIAL REPORT.

Sir J. Wardlaw-Milne: It is difficult to ask a Supplementary Question without knowing the full reply, but do I understand from the reply, to the extent my right hon. Friend has given it, that it is not his intention to reconsider this matter, bearing in mind the fact that this man, who served in the last war and volunteered for this war, has been dismissed with ignominy from the Army for the terrible crime of refusing to undergo a fourth medical examination when he had three times been passed category C?

Sir J. Grigg: It would be better if my hon. Friend would read the very much longer answer I am proposing to circulate in the OFFICIAL REPORT. As regards his first Supplementary Question the matter has received extremely careful consideration, not only by the General Officer Commanding of the Command, but by the Judge-Advocate-General and by the Army Council, and I personally see no reason for further reconsideration.

Mr. Gallacher: In view of the fact that some time ago the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Epping (Mr. Churchill), before he was Prime Minister, had a Question down that took up half a page on the Order Paper, am I to understand, Mr. Speaker, that since then a recommendation has been made that Questions should be confined to a certain length, as I have not heard of that before?

Mr. Speaker: It is important, in order to save paper and for other reasons, to limit the length of Questions as much as possible.

Following is the answer:

Lieutenant W. C. Wood, Royal Army Pay Corps, was tried by General Court-Martial on 2nd September, 1942, and found guilty on a charge of disobeying a

lawful command in that he on 18th July, 1942, having been ordered by his commanding officer to be medically examined, refused to be so examined by the medical officer. He was sentenced to be dismissed from His Majesty's Service. The proceedings were confirmed by the General Officer Commanding-in-Chief, Western Command, and promulgated on 23rd September, 1942. Lieutenant Wood was charged on arrest with disobeying an order to attend a parade on 22nd July. It was afterwards decided to try him on a charge of disobeying a previous order on 18th July. There is nothing unusual in trying a person on a different charge from that preferred on arrest.
The commanding officer commanded him to be medically examined, not in order to seek to override the finding of the medical boards, but to ascertain whether the accused was fit to go upon parade. The command was a lawful one and the accused was bound by the Army Act to obey it. If he felt himself wronged by his commanding officer he was entitled to submit an appeal, under Section 42 of the Army Act, but instead of doing so he took the law into his own hands. He did not dispute that he had committed an act of disobedience on 18th July, 1942. It is not stated why he could not call witnesses nor can he have been prejudiced at his trial by his failure to do so. The court tried the case on the evidence given orally before them, and not on the summary of evidence. The contention that no action was taken against other absentees from the course which Lieutenant Wood began but discontinued is not relevant to the charge on which the accused was tried, namely, that he disobeyed a lawful command on 18th July, 1942.

Billeting Allowance

Commander Galbraith: asked the Secretary of State for War the date on which the billeting allowance for soldiers was fixed at 6d. per night?

Sir J. Grigg: This rate has been in force since the beginning of the last war.

Commander Galbraith: Is my right hon. Friend aware that since 1914 there has been a very great difference in the cost of the various items required in connection with billeting, and will he take steps to go into the matter and have it adjusted to an economic level?

Sir J. Grigg: I gather that there have been adjustments in the food part of the billeting allowance, and I will consider whether the rent allowance also needs re-consideration.

Mr. Cluse: Can the right hon. Gentleman say whether billeted soldiers still receive beer money as in Victorian times?

Sentences on Officers (Review)

Mr. Granville: asked the Secretary of State for War whether it is the rule to review, every three months, as in the case of other ranks, the sentences of officers who are imprisoned in a civil prison as the result of trial by military court-martial; and whether it is the practice to call up such individuals for military service upon their release after having served their sentence?

Sir J. Grigg: A sentence of imprisonment imposed on an officer is usually reviewed in the War Office within a few weeks of its promulgation and thereafter every six months from the beginning of the sentence. I am informed that the answer to the last part of the Question is "Yes, Sir."

Mr. Granville: In cases where the sentences were imposed for something akin to an indiscretion, will the right hon. Gentleman consider a further remission to enable these ex-officers to go and fight overseas?

Sir J. Grigg: The particular case to which the hon. Member refers—which is a case with which I am very familiar—was a great deal worse than an indiscretion.

Mr. Granville: Does the date of calling-up papers coincide with the date of release from prison?

Sir J. Grigg: I cannot say.

Rifle Range, Warrington

Mr. Goldie: asked the Secretary of State for War under what Defence of the Realm Regulation he has authorised the resumption of firing on the rifle range at Orford Barracks, Warrington, notwithstanding that such range has been condemned; and whether he is prepared to assume financial responsibility for injuries

to civilians resident in the neighbourhood and for damage to property caused by the resumption of such firing?

Sir J. Grigg: The range is on War Department land, and no recourse to Defence Regulations is necessary for the Army to use it. It has always been considered safe by the competent military authorities, and no accident seems likely to occur either to civilian residents in the neighbourhood or to their property. I understand that children cannot now enter the danger area of the range while it is being used. But if injury or damage is done and if it is established that it is due to the negligence of military personnel on duty, a claim for compensation will be considered in the normal way. I much regret the inconvenience from noise caused to local inhabitants by firing on this range. Unfortunately the needs of training make it unavoidable. I hope, however, that it will be possible to restrict firing to certain fixed times and so limit the inconvenience as far as possible.

Mr. Messer: Can we really have a war without inconvenience?

Headquarters Staff, Cairo.

Mr. Turton: asked the Secretary of State for War the percentage reduction in the staff of General Headquarters, Middle East Force, since the formation of Allied Group Headquarters?

Sir J. Grigg: I regret that the percentage is not readily available.

Mr. Turton: In view of the problem of man-power and the change in the military situation, is it not timely now to review the very considerable force of staff officers at Cairo?

Sir J. Grigg: This is a question which is continually under review.

Mr. Molson: If my right hon. Friend is not able to give the percentage, can he give, at any rate, the assurance that some reduction has taken place in the headquarters staff?

Sir J. Grigg: The process of adjusting the staff and the Forces in the Middle East to the military tasks which they are called upon to perform is one which is going on constantly.

Mr. Turton: Will the Secretary of State for War give an undertaking that the staff at Cairo is reviewed at an early date?

Sir J. Grigg: As I said, the review is constantly going on, and in fact papers relating to the question are on my table now.

Troops, North Africa (Reading Matter)

Mr. Turton: asked the Secretary of State for War what steps he is taking to increase the supply of reading matter to troops fighting in Tunisia?

Sir J. Grigg: I regret that no shipping space could be allocated for books and magazines until the military stores and equipment vitally needed for operations in North Africa had been despatched. On 1st February over 100,000 books and over 10,000 magazines and journals were despatched. Since then consignments have been sent regularly at the rate of about 10,000 books and 9,500 magazines and journals a month. I hope, therefore, that the First Army will shortly have a good supply of reading matter. The Eighth Army is supplied with reading matter from the Middle East; 21,000 books and over 70,000 magazines and journals have for some time been despatched to the Middle East every month. I fully appreciate the need of the soldier for as much reading matter as possible and the supplies now being sent will be increased if shipping space is available and if sufficient books and magazines are forthcoming. I take this opportunity of expressing the Army's thanks to all those who have sent books and magazines for the use of the troops. The demand is as great as ever, and I am sure we may count on the continued help of the public in meeting it.

Mr. Turton: While appreciating the great work which has been done in this connection, may I ask the Minister whether he is aware that in February there was a very great shortage of reading matter among the troops of the Eighth Army and that this plays a vital part in maintaining morale between battles?

Sir J. Grigg: I would not accept the view that it was the most vital part, although I agree it is a vital part. As I have said, conditions of shipping from

time to time make for a certain inequality in the despatch of materials to the Middle East.

Mr. Quintin Hogg: Will the Minister bear in mind the question of quality of reading matter as well as quantity?

Sir J. Grigg: That is in the hands of a body—I have forgotten its full designation—which pays particular attention to that sort of thing.

Mr. Gallacher: Will the Minister make application to the headquarters of the Communist Party so that instead of sending a good supply of reading matter he will be able to send a supply of good reading matter?

Route Marches (Bands)

Lieut.-Colonel Sir Thomas Moore: asked the Secretary of State for War whether he will consider arranging for formal route marches to take place periodically through the nearest towns to military camps accompanied by military bands?

Sir J. Grigg: This is done whenever opportunities occur. But most route marching is done as part of the unit's operational training. The bandsmen are then employed on their operational duties, and no band accompanies the unit.

Sir T. Moore: While I dislike harping on this subject, will my right hon. Friend bear in mind that this arrangement of bands accompanying troops who are in the public eye is good for the troops themselves and most invigorating for civilians?

Sir J. Grigg: I quite agree, but I should not put it down as the most important part of troops' training.

Mr. Thorne: Will the Minister bear in mind the fact that a great number of men who are working on munitions at night have to sleep in the day-time?

Coastal Areas (Restrictions)

Sir Leonard Lyle: asked the Secretary of State for War whether, as the uncertainty regarding the sudden imposition of a ban on access to protected areas within 10 miles of the coast will have a disastrous effect on the economic life of many places of residence and business, he will endeavour to arrange some system of notification which will at least enable


those both inside and outside the areas in question to ascertain how they are likely to stand within the next 24 hours?

Sir J. Grigg: I much regret the effects these restrictions may have in the areas concerned, and I can assure my hon. Friend that the Army will endeavour to cause as little interference as possible with the normal life of the residents in those areas. The restrictions will be imposed for strictly military reasons, and although as much notice as possible will be given locally in each case, I regret that no guarantee can be given of the length of this notice.

Sir L. Lyle: While I thank my right hon. Friend for his answer, and while nobody wishes to give information to the enemy, would he not agree that in order to save travel and disturbance to people generally there ought to be some method by which people can get to know whether a ban is on or not?

Home Guard Munition Dumps, Manchester

Mr. Thorneycroft: asked the Secretary of State for War whether his attention has been drawn to the fact that quantities of ammunition, including hand grenades, have been stolen from Home Guard dumps in Manchester; and will he cause instructions to be issued to all Home Guard units to take greater care in the storage of arms and ammunition in the interest of public safety?

Mr. Burke: asked the Secretary of State for War whether he is aware that Home Guard munition dumps in the Manchester area have recently been broken into by children and bombs and hand grenades stolen causing great anxiety to parents and police authorities; and will he give instructions for better storage or a more adequate guard?

Sir J. Grigg: I have called for a report, and when I receive it will consider what further action is necessary. But clear instructions for the safeguarding of Home Guard ammunition stores have already been issued to Home Guard commanders.

Sir Herbert Williams: Does that also apply to clothing and equipment?

Sir J. Grigg: I should think so.

Soldiers Overseas (Marriage)

Mr. Bellenger: asked the Secretary of State for War what representations have been made to him by welfare organisations regarding marriage of soldiers serving overseas and individuals resident in this country; and whether he can make any statement on this matter?

Sir J. Grigg: I have seen some representations on this subject that were made to the Commander-in-Chief of the Middle East Forces by the local advisory committee of a welfare organisation. These representations have received careful consideration, but I regret that it is not possible to make any statement on the matter at the moment.

Mr. Bellenger: Is the Minister taking any further action on those representations? Can he say whether he will be in a position to make a statement later?

Sir J. Grigg: It is not for me to make a statement. Mine is only one Department of those concerned in this matter.

Mr. Bellenger: Will the Minister answer the first part of my Supplementary Question? Is he taking action on those representations?

Sir J. Grigg: I have taken all the action which is appropriate to me for the time being.

Medical Examination (Female Medical Officers)

Mr. Bellenger: asked the Secretary of State for War whether soldiers can be compelled to submit to a medical examination by female medical officers?

Sir J. Grigg: A soldier may be compelled to be medically examined whether the examination is carried out by a male or a female doctor.

Mr. Bellenger: Is the Minister aware that this is not a matter of amusement for a large number of soldiers who object to it? Is it compulsory for a soldier to undergo a routine medical inspection by a female medical officer when a male medical officer is available? Further, does this rule apply to officers as well as to other ranks?

Mrs. Tate: Is the hon. Member desirous of having these sensitive men nursed by male nurses? Is it not in the interests


of all that the best person available should do the job?

Sir J. Grigg: The Question I was asked was as to the legality of this and not as to its expediency. I have answered the Question as to the legality and not as to the expediency.

Mr. Bellenger: Mine was a perfectly legitimate Supplementary. I am asking the Minister whether it is legal when there is present a male medical officer who can conduct the examination?

Major-General Sir Percy Laurie

Mr. Evelyn Walkden: asked the Secretary of State for War whether, in considering the appointment of Major-General Sir P. R. Laurie as Provost Marshal of Great Britain, he was aware that Sir Percy was chairman of the Divisional Conservative and Unionist Association for the area where he resides; and whether he can give an assurance that he is no longer actively engaged in party politics?

Sir J. Grigg: Sir Percy Laurie was appointed Provost Marshal in 1940. I understand that he ceased to be chairman of the Divisional Conservative and Unionist Association in 1939. There is, moreover, no record that he has since then been actively engaged in party politics.

Oral Answers to Questions — SCOTLAND

Housing, Clydebank

Mr. Kirkwood: asked the Secretary of State for Scotland whether he is aware that the housing shortage in Clydebank is so great that men engaged on urgent war production are unable to house their families; and in view of the serious effect of this shortage on the health of the children, will he arrange for priority to be given to the housing needs of such families?

The Joint Under-Secretary of State for Scotland (Mr. Westwood): My right hon. Friend understands that the town council give special consideration to the claims of homeless war workers in the letting of any houses under their control and that they have come to an arrangement with the property owners under which a preference is given to such workers as respects the letting of privately owned houses. As the

hon. Member has already been informed, my right hon. Friend is prepared in suitable cases to authorise the requisitioning of privately owned houses for war workers and their families. In addition, special arrangements have been made under which Clydebank workers who have lost their homes and are unable to obtain suitable accommodation in Clydebank may be found accommodation in Glasgow.

Mr. Kirkwood: Is my hon. Friend aware that people in Clydebank are refusing to go into the slums of Glasgow?

Mr. Westwood: I am aware that in some cases they have declined to go to the houses that have been requisitioned for them, but not in all cases of refusal have the properties been in slum areas.

Mrs. Hardie: Is my hon. Friend aware that there is no surplus accommodation in Glasgow for anyone? People are crying out for houses and, in many parts, are living in horrible conditions.

Mr. Buchanan: Is my hon. Friend aware that the policy of transferring people to Glasgow is making the position terribly acute and that it is no solution for the people of Clydebank, as it only makes the position more intolerable? It is disgraceful.

Mr. Kirkwood: asked the Secretary of State for Scotland whether he has considered the typical cases of hardship to the families of Service men and war workers resulting from the housing shortage in Clydebank, which have been sent to him by the hon. Member for Dumbarton Burghs; and whether he will take steps to relieve these and similar cases?

Mr. Westwood: Inquiries are being made into the cases referred to by the hon. Member, and my right hon. Friend will communicate with him as soon as these inquiries have been completed.

Mr. Gallacher: Is it not the case that there are very many large houses around the area that could be taken over by the Secretary of State for Scotland and put to use to serve the needs of some of these families?

Mr. Westwood: The Secretary of State has given full powers to the local authorities to requisition the houses which they consider to be desirable for the purpose of accommodating our people.

Crofters (Dr. Fraser Darling's Visits)

Major McCallum: asked the Secretary of State for Scotland whether he is aware that the services of the naturalist and crofter, Dr. Fraser Darling, are only to be available for visits and demonstrations to those crofters situated between Moidart, in Inverness-shire, and Kinlochbervie, in Sutherlandshire; and whether he will take steps for the crofters of Argyllshire also to benefit from Dr. Fraser Darling's visits and demonstrations?

The Joint Under-Secretary of State for Scotland (Mr. Allan Chapman): Dr. Fraser Darling's appoinment is on a part-time basis only, and in view of this I am afraid it will not be possible for him to cover the wide territory suggested in the hon. Member's Question. It is hoped that through the medium of articles in the local Press Dr. Darling will be able to give advice to crofters outside the 100-mile long area in which he will presently operate.

Dairy Cattle (Diseases)

Mrs. Hardie: asked the Secretary of State for Scotland whether he has considered the request from the Scottish Association of Certified and Tuberculin-Tested Milk Producers, calling attention to the inadequate scientific research being made into the causes and treatment of diseases in dairy cattle, and asking that a Scottish research organisation should be set up; and what action he proposes to take?

Major Lloyd: asked the Secretary of State for Scotland whether he has given consideration to the resolution recently sent to him by the Scottish Association of Certified and Tuberculin-tested Milk Producers concerning scientific research into the causes and probable cure of mastitis; and what action he is proposing to take in the matter?

Mr. Chapman: My right hon. Friend has recently received the communication from the Association to which the hon. Members refer and is giving it careful consideration. In the meantime I should point out that research into cattle diseases, including mastitis, is being actively pursued with financial assistance from the Government under the general guidance of the Agricultural Research Council at various centres in Scotland and elsewhere. It is clearly desirable that investigations on these diseases, wherever they are carried out,

should be closely co-ordinated, and this is ensured by the existing arrangements. In Scotland the Council work in association with the Scottish Board of Research in Veterinary Science, which includes in its membership eight Professors of the Science Faculties of Scottish Universities and six leading members of the veterinary profession in Scotland.

Mrs. Hardie: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that those who are trying to provide disease-free milk should be given encouragement and that they are of opinion that the research is not sufficiently comprehensive, and would it not be a good thing to turn some fresh minds to this particular question?

Mr. Chapman: My right hon. Friend is fully seized of the importance of this subject, which is constantly under review, but the hon. Lady will appreciate the difficulties of getting hold of the right people at this stage of the war.

Mr. Snadden: Is my hon. Friend aware that of the four main diseases affecting dairy cattle, mastitis is the most deadly, and that the laboratory facilities existing in Scotland at the present time are quite inadequate to deal effectively with this disease, and will he not consider, in the interests of public health in Scotland, setting up the organisation that was suggested in the resolution to which the hon. Lady has referred?

Mr. Chapman: I am fully aware of the importance of dealing with mastitis, which is a deadly scourge, but I must point out that there are great difficulties in increasing research facitilies in war-time, although we are doing all that we can.

Oral Answers to Questions — FUEL AND POWER

Point of Ayr Collieries (Control)

Mr. Rowlands: asked the Minister of Fuel and Power why he has found it necessary to take over the control of the Point of Ayr Collieries, Ffynnongroew, Flintshire?

Sir Stanley Reed: asked the Minister of Fuel and Power what the reasons were for the issue of the Order to take over the Ffynnongroew Colliery, Flintshire, from the Point of Ayr Collieries, Limited;


whether any criticisms had been made of its management; whether he is aware that it had the highest output per man of all the collieries in North Wales and the best safety record, and had been free from stoppages since the great coal strike of 1924; and whether his attention has been directed to the comments of Mr. Justice Singleton in giving judgment in the appeal against the vesting order?

Mr. Colegate: asked the Minister of Fuel and Power whether, in view of Mr. Justice Singleton's remarks on the imposition of control on the Point of Ayr Colliery, he will now remove this control?

Colonel Sir A. Lambert Ward: asked the Minister of Fuel and Power whether his attention has been called to the comments made by the learned Judge in the case of Point of Ayr Collieries, Limited, versus Lloyd George and others; and whether he still intends to take over the control of the colliery?

Mr. Wootton-Davies: asked the Minister of Fuel and Power whether his attention has been called to the remarks of Mr. Justice Singleton in the case of the Point of Ayr Collieries, Limited, versus Lloyd George and others; and what action he intends to take?

Sir L. Lyle: asked the Minister of Fuel and Power whether he can make any statement as to the output and degree of efficiency of the Point of Ayr Colliery in Flintshire prior to taking over control of that undertaking; how its efficiency compared with other pits of the same character; what increase of efficiency there has been since it was taken over; and whether he can make a short statement as to the reason for this change of control?

Mr. Simmonds: asked the Minister of Fuel and Power what was the condition of affairs at the Point of Ayr Colliery which decided him to place this colliery under his own control?

Mr. Ralph Etherton: asked the Minister of Fuel and Power whether he is aware that the High Court Judge who tried the case of Point of Ayr Collieries, Limited, against Lloyd George and others, indicated in his judgment that in making a Control Order his Department appeared to have acted both lightly, unfairly and without good cause; what safeguards or rights of appeal are available in such an

event; and what action he proposes to take?

The Minister of Fuel and Power (Major Lloyd George): The decision to take control of this undertaking, whose technical efficiency has never been in dispute, was only reached after the most careful consideration, lasting many months. There has been considerable friction, extending over several years, in the North Wales coalfield as a result of the refusal of the undertaking to agree to the request of the North Wales and Border Counties Mine Workers' Association to be allowed the same facilities on behalf of its members at this colliery as are allowed to the Association at all the other collieries in the district. My hon. Friends will appreciate that the co-operation of all engaged in the industry is vital to the war effort. Repeated attempts have been made to remove the causes of this friction by my Department. The North Wales Coal-owners' Association have also done everything in their power to assist; this resulted in the resignation of the Point of Ayr Collieries from the Coalowners' Association.
During my visit to the district last autumn, I realised that the situation was becoming worse, and I was seriously perturbed as to the effect it would have on production in the whole district. Since then I have kept in constant touch with my Regional Controller in the North Western area. His reports showed quite clearly that the situation was becoming steadily worse. I further received in the middle of January last a confidential report from Sir John Forster, who had been appointed, at my request, by my right hon. Friend the Minister of Labour and National Service to make an independent investigation. Sir John came to the conclusion that if the causes of the friction were not removed there might be trouble throughout the North Wales coalfield. Accordingly it became my duty to consider whether this situation might not seriously affect the production of coal. I decided that having regard to all the history of this matter there was no means of bringing the friction to an end, other than by taking control of the undertaking under Defence Regulation 55 (4). While I am willing at any time to consider removing the control, I must first be satisfied that the danger to the war effort, which led me to impose it, has been


removed and will not recur. I am not so satisfied at present.
My attention has been called to the comments of Mr. Justice Singleton. I was advised that as the Courts had no jurisdiction to consider the reasonableness of my Order, and as my responsibility in this matter was to Parliament, and in particular to this House, it would not be correct, either legally or constitutionally, for evidence to be submitted to the Court as to my reasons for making this Order. A submission to this effect was made to Mr. Justice Singleton by the Solicitor-General and no evidence was therefore called on my behalf. The learned Judge decided the case in my favour, on the ground that I was the responsible person and that I had the right to make this Order. Mr. Justice Singleton's comments on my conduct were, therefore, made in the absence of any evidence on my behalf and it is, I think, right that I should add that the learned Judge made it clear that these comments were outside his province in the case.

Mr. Rowlands: Is it not a fact that the relationships between the employers and the employees have been most cordial at this colliery and that there has been no stoppage there since 1926, which is unique not only in the history of this region but in the history of pits throughout the whole country?

Major Lloyd George: That has nothing to do with the point I made, which was that there are in this colliery a large number of men who belong to a union and who desire the same rights at this colliery as are available in every other colliery throughout the country. My only interest is to see that everybody is treated alike.

Mr. Simmonds: Will my right hon. and gallant Friend really tell us specifically what was the reason for this action?

Major Lloyd George: If my hon. Friend will read my answer to-morrow, he will find the reason there, and that is the only reason, and I have nothing to add to what I have said.

Mr. Austin Hopkinson: Will my right hon. and gallant Friend tell us in what specific cases this colliery company has not provided facilities for the Miners' Federation?

Major Lloyd George: I could not do that by means of question and answer, but I can assure my hon. Friend that I have given more attention to this matter than to any other single administrative item since I have been in the Department, I could give many instances where there have been both discourtesy and provocation.

Mr. Colegate: Can my right hon. and gallant Friend give us the percentage of the men concerned whom he referred to as a large number?

Major Lloyd George: It is an increasing number, and I will say that at this moment it is over 50 per cent. of those engaged in colliery work.

Mr. Molson: Are we to understand from the Minister's reply, contrary to what has been stated, that the management of that pit had an opportunity of making representations to the Minister before he availed himself of this power?

Major Lloyd George: They have had plenty of opportunity over a good many years, and I can assure my hon. Friend that of all the people concerned in this dispute no one knows the reason for this action better than does the colliery management.

Sir John Mellor: Was not the Minister's action entirely contrary to the intention of the Regulation, even if it was within the legal limits?

Major Lloyd George: No, Sir. The purpose of making this Regulation was to safeguard the safety of the Realm and to ensure that supplies were not endangered. I was satisfied, after the most careful consideration, that supplies would be endangered if some action was not taken.

Mr. Rowlands: In view of the unsatisfactory nature of the reply, I beg to give notice that I intend to raise this matter on the Adjournment at the earliest opportunity.

Use of Petrol (Whitefields Patient)

Mr. Wootton-Davies: asked the Minister of Fuel and Power whether he will investigate the circumstances under which, owing to the action of the Barrow-in-Furness local authority in refusing the use of their ambulance to a Whitefields


patient, petrol was wasted in a 200 miles journey, of which the full facts have been sent to him?

Major Lloyd George: Yes, Sir.

Youths (Underground Work, Mines)

Mr. Dobbie: asked the Minister of Fuel and Power (1) on what authority he has issued the instruction for youths who work at pit tops to be directed to underground work in the mines;
(2) what rights of appeal a youth who works at a pit top has against a direction to proceed to underground working; and is the pit production committee consulted before such direction is issued;
(3) whether he will take into consideration the position of lads who are employed at pit tops and are compelled to proceed to underground in the mines with a view to giving them the same option of choice, between service with His Majesty's Forces or the mines, as is given to lads in other forms of employment?

Major Lloyd George: In giving directions, under powers conferred upon him by Defence Regulation 58A to ensure the most efficient use of the man-power available in the coalmining industry, my right hon. Friend the Minister of Labour and National Service acts in close consultation with me. I have asked him to use his powers in appropriate cases to direct to underground employment surface workers between the ages of 18 and 25 at the date of registration, in order that men who are physically fit and whose work on the surface could be done by older or less fit men might relieve the serious shortage of underground workers. Pit Production Committees are not asked as a general rule to give advice on the cases appropriate for the receipt of directions, but those directed have in every case an opportunity of appeal to local Appeal Boards established by the Ministry of Labour and National Service. In view of the shortage of man-power in the underground occupations and in the age groups to which I have referred, I am not prepared to suggest to my right hon. Friend that such men should be free to choose between work underground or service in His Majesty's Forces.

Mr. Dobbie: In view of the fact that it has not been the general practice prior to the war, and in view of the terms of imprisonment to which young men have

been sentenced and the great resentment that has been caused in mining areas, and of the danger of making criminals rather than miners, will not the Minister again consider the question?

Major Lloyd George: I do not think I could do that. It is of the greatest urgency to get men to work underground, and I cannot see in these days, when people are sent all over the world, that any real hardship is suffered by people being asked to go underground.

Mr. E. Walkden: Where lads have been attending technical colleges and training as craftsmen and engineers, is it not reasonable that they should be afforded the opportunity, if they wish it, to join the Royal Air Force, as many of them desire to do?

Major Lloyd George: We shall need more of those very technicians. We have not a surplus at the moment.

Oral Answers to Questions — POST-WAR AIRCRAFT MANUFACTURE

Mr. Astor: asked the Prime Minister whether any decision has been taken by the Government as to whether the manufacture of civil aircraft is or is not to be nationalised after the war; and whether he can give assurances that the House of Commons will be consulted before any final decision is taken and that no wartime measures will be used to prevent existing firms with long and successful experience in this work from resuming it after the war?

The Prime Minister (Mr. Churchill): His Majesty's Government have taken no decision about the nationalisation after the war of the manufacture of aircraft, whether for civilian or military purposes. I cannot conceive that the Government would embark upon such a policy with all its implications without consulting not only the House but the country. As to the last part of the Question, there is no intention to use the war-time powers to prejudice unjustly any existing firm or their shareholders. Decisions as to the future policy of the State in time of peace must be taken on general grounds and by regular constitutional means and not as a result of the application of war-time measures in particular instances.

Mr. Astor: Will the Government take immediate practical steps to ensure that shareholders will be able to get their property back through having the shares which the Government have taken over registered in their names, or some other practical measure of that sort?

The Prime Minister: I have nothing to add to my answer.

Mr. Granville: Will the right hon. Gentleman bear in mind that we shall have no civil aircraft at all after the war unless we prepare our designs now?

Sir H. Williams: As the Emergency Powers Act will last until His Majesty by Proclamation declares the present emergency at an end and as, judging by the precedent of the last war, that may not happen until two years after the termination of hostilities, can we have some assurance that emergency powers will not be used for exceptional purposes after the termination of hostilities?

The Prime Minister: Our policy is everything for the war and, after the war is won, fair, free review under normal political conditions.

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE (SCOTLAND)

Mr. Gallacher: asked the Prime Minister whether he will allocate more time for the discussion of Scottish Business or, alternately, will he arrange for the re-establishment of the Scottish Grand Committee for the discussion of purely Scottish Business?

Mr. Kirkwood: asked the Prime Minister whether he has any statement to make on the allocation of time for Scottish Business?

The Prime Minister: I am not aware of any ground for reconsidering at present the time allotted to the discussion of purely Scottish Business, which does not appear to have suffered restriction in comparison with other Business of the House as a result of war-time conditions. In the present abnormal circumstances the Government feel it impracticable to refer Bills to Standing Committees, for reasons which will be readily understood in all quarters of the House.

Mr. Gallacher: Is the right hon. Gentleman not aware that the Scottish

Grand Committee could meet in Scotland on Monday, do its business, travel on Monday night and submit the result to the House on Tuesday? Would not that be an advantage, in view of the way Business is all cluttered up at present?

The Prime Minister: Whether it would be an advantage or not I cannot now discuss, but it certainly does not arise out of the Question.

Mr. Kirkwood: Is the right hon. Gentleman not aware that all that we are after is justice for Scotland?

The Prime Minister: It is the most earnest desire of the Government that justice in the fullest measure should be given to that gallant nation.

Sir Alfred Beit: Would it be too much to ask that the two hon. Members should concentrate their attention exclusively on Scottish affairs?

Mr. John Dugdale: Could we have a day set apart for English affairs?

NATIONAL FINANCE

Government-Acquired Private Undertakings (Post-War Disposal)

Mr. Simmonds: asked the Prime Minister whether he will give an assurance that it is the intention of the Government eventually to restore to private enterprise undertakings which have been purchased by the State in the name of increased war production?

Mr. Astor: asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether he will consider a procedure whereby, in cases where the shares of a firm are compulsorily acquired under war-time measures without the consent of the shareholders, they should be held in trust during the war and, after the war, offered to the former shareholders at a price fixed by a similar procedure to that whereby they were acquired?

The Chancellor of the Exchequer (Sir Kingsley Wood): I have been asked to reply. I am not clear precisely for what purpose my hon. Friend the Member for East Fulham (Mr. Astor) suggests the creation of a trust. Where shares are acquired to secure effective control of an undertaking they are transferred to the Treasury Solicitor and held by him on behalf of the Government. The disposal of the shares cannot be very well dis-


sociated from the larger question of disposal of property and assets of various kinds acquired or created by the Government during the war. On this point, as I informed my hon. Friend the Member for Tynemouth on 1st April (Sir A. Russell), the question is receiving preliminary study, but decisions as to the scope and method of such disposals will depend upon a variety of circumstances and considerations which cannot be fully assessed at the present time, including, of course, the possibility of changes in the nature and value of the assets while they have been in Government hands.

Mr. Simmonds: Is it not a fact that the trade unions have received from the Government a formal assurance as to the restitution of their proper rights after hostilities, and does not my right hon. Friend think that both equity and constitutional government demand that a similar assurance should be given to private enterprise?

Sir K. Wood: I think the Prime Minister has covered a good deal of that in his reply.

Mr. Astor: Will my right hon. Friend give existing shareholders receipts for the shares when they are taken over, so that they will be able to put forward a claim for them subsequently?

Sir K. Wood: I will consider that.

Post-War Monetary Policy

Mr De la Bère: asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether, in view of the numerous pronouncements on reserve banking emanating from the United States of America, he will give an assurance that it is not the intention of His Majesty's Government to participate in the establishment of a world reserve bank; and whether he is now in a position to give some further indication of their proposed actions to ensure the necessary flow of credit to restore industry and commerce at the conclusion of hostilities?

Sir K. Wood: I think my hon. Friend might find it convenient to await the publication of the White Paper, which will indicate the way in which this subject is being examined and which will be available to Members to-morrow.

Mr. De la Bère: Does not my right hon. Friend realise one central and vital fact that the only true solution of this prob-

lem is the establishment of social and economic justice?

Mr. Craven-Ellis: asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether, before this country is committed to any proposals for post-war stabilisation of currency, which the coming conference in the United States of America of finance ministers, or their representatives, of the United Nations might recommend, he will give this House an assurance that they will have an opportunity to debate the recommendations?

Sir K. Wood: If it is the general desire of the House to have a Debate on this and other aspects of post-war monetary policy after the publication of the forthcoming White Paper, I have no doubt that such a proposal would receive careful consideration.

Mr. Craven-Ellis: If we accept the American plan for currency stabilisation in full, will it not ultimately result in Britain losing her monetary freedom, and do the Government give it support?

Sir K. Wood: I would ask my hon. Friend to see the American plan before making any criticisms.

Mr. Hammersley: Does the answer mean that the Debate is to take place in circumstances in which no commitments have been entered into?

Sir K. Wood: I would ask my hon. Friend to await the publication of the White Paper to-morrow, when he will see that question answered.

Mr. Kirkwood: Is there any truth in the rumour that the Chancellor will increase the Income Tax?

Mr. Craven Ellis: asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether his representatives at the conference called by the Secretary of the United States Treasury, will be authorised to submit to the conference for discussion the post-war currency proposals formulated by his advisers?

Sir K. Wood: I would ask my hon. Friend to await the publication of the White Paper.

Mr. Craven-Ellis: asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether he will publish the names of those who will represent the Treasury at the conference to


which the Secretary of State of the United States Treasury has invited them, together with representatives of the United Nations, to discuss currency stabilisation and other post-war monetary plans?

Sir K. Wood: The present informal discussions with experts in the Departments of the United States Government are being conducted, in the ordinary course of business, by a responsible official of the Treasury, who is stationed in Washington. If arrangements are made for a more formal conference, His Majesty's Government will consider whether any additional representation is desirable.

Earned Income From United States (Double Taxation)

Mr. E. P. Smith: asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether his attention has been drawn to the fact that persons resident in this country who are in receipt of an earned income from the United States of America are liable to American as well as British Income Tax, amounting in all to 13s. in the £; and whether, in view of the need to encourage by every possible means this type of importation of dollars, he will consider giving such persons a proportional rebate on their British tax to bring them into line with the rest of the British taxpayers?

Sir K. Wood: The provisions of our law relating to relief from double taxation do not extend to earned income that may be subject to both United States Income Tax and United Kingdom Income Tax, but the United States tax would generally be allowed as a deduction in computing the income chargeable to United Kingdom tax. I am not clear as to the type of case which my hon. Friend has in mind, and I should be glad if he would furnish me with particulars.

Mr. Smith: Will the right hon. Gentleman bear in mind the practice of many professional men and women who sell their services or their work to the United States for dollar payments and so incur this double taxation?

Tax Concessions

Sir I. Albery: asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether he will issue an indexed list of all concessions of general interest made for Income Tax, Surtax and Excess Profits Tax purposes similar to his Department's recent publication on the

Income Tax and Finance Acts, so that information as to these concessions may be readily available to the general public?

Sir K. Wood: As my hon. Friend is doubtless aware, certain matters he refers to have already been the subject of announcement in Parliament, and various taxation pamphlets have also been issued. The Board of Inland Revenue have now under consideration how the work and collection of the Excess Profits Tax can be facilitated by further publicity.

BEVERIDGE REPORT (SALES)

Mr. Clement Davies: asked the Financial Secretary to the Treasury how many copies have been sold of the full Report by Sir William Beveridge, the abridged edition of the same and the American edition of the same?

The Financial Secretary to the Treasury (Mr. Assheton): The sales, in round figures, of the full Report are 250,000, of the abridged edition 350,000 and of the American edition 42,000.

Sir S. Reed: Will my hon. Friend tell the House how many of those copies have been read?

COLONIES (ECONOMIC AND POLITICAL REFORMS)

Mr. Granville: asked the Secretary of State for Dominion Affairs whether he proposes to consult the Dominion Governments on the question of future economic and political reforms in the British Colonies?

The Under-Secretary of State for Dominion Affairs (Mr. Emrys-Evans): It is the established policy of the Government to consult Dominion Governments on major questions of policy which are of common concern to the whole Empire, including major issues of Colonial policy.

Mr. Granville: Was General Smuts consulted before the recent declaration on Colonial policy?

Mr. Emrys-Evans: I shall have to have notice of that Question.

AFFORESTATION

Major Kimball: asked the right hon. and gallant Member for Rye, as representing the Forestry Commissioners, whether


he will state for England and Wales and for Scotland, separately, the total area of woodland; the total area under the charge of the Forestry Commission; the planted area under the charge of the Forestry Commission and the areas still to be afforested; and the estimated area in Scotland which is unsuitable for afforestation?

Colonel Sir George Courthope (Forestry Commissioner): The total area of woodland, in England and Wales, according to the latest estimate is 2,040,000 acres and in Scotland 1,040,000 acres. The total area in England and Wales under the charge of the Forestry Commission is 629,000 acres and in Scotland 603,000. These figures include (a) planted area in England and Wales 325,000 acres and in Scotland 183,000, (b) area still to be afforested in England and Wales 139,000 acres and in Scotland 118,000, and (c) area unsuitable for afforestation 165,000 acres in England and Wales and 302,000 in Scotland of which 280,000 acres are too poor for afforestation.

Major Kimball: Are those figures a correction or an amplification of the figures which my right hon. and gallant Friend gave on 2nd February in reply to a Question by the hon. and gallant Member for Argyll (Major McCallum)?

Sir G. Courthope: They are a clarification and an amplification.

Mr. John Dugdale: How much of this is hard wood and how much soft wood?

Sir G. Courthope: I could not say without notice.

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE

Mr. Arthur Greenwood: In view of the fact that the Committee stage of the Catering Wages Bill was not finished last Thursday, as it was generally assumed it would be, could the Prime Minister make a statement on the course of Business for to-day and the next Sitting Days?

The Prime Minister: As my right hon. Friend has reminded us, the Committee stage of the Catering Wages Bill was not completed last Thursday, and in consequence we must resume and conclude the Committee stage to-day. We shall also take the Motion to approve the China Clay (Charges) Order.
The Business previously anounced for consideration to-day will be taken on the next Sitting Day, and the Business for the next Sitting Day will be taken on the third Sitting Day. The Debate on Colonial Administration in the West Indies will have to be postponed till a later date.
I may say that my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary, the Leader of the House, has returned quite safely to this country after a most successful mission in the United States. The journey was not without its rigorous aspects, and I thought that it would be advisable that he should have a day or two in the country after the very strenuous time he has been having. He will, however, be ready on the third Sitting Day, if the House will think it convenient, to give an account of his mission which will not be of a controversial character in any way. I trust that the House will welcome that procedure being adopted.

Mr. Gallacher: In view of the Catering Wages Bill being carried over till to-day, will the Prime Minister seriously consider an extra Sitting Day?

The Prime Minister: I am not advised that that will be necessary. The Government are always watching the movement of Business to get as much done as possible with the greatest convenience to Members.

Mr. Maxton: The Prime Minister said that the statement of the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs will not be controversial. Does that mean that the House will not have an opportunity of discussing it?

The Prime Minister: That was the idea I was endeavouring tactfully to insinuate.

Earl Winterton: Shall we have the Prayer in which many hon. Members are greatly interested on the second or third Sitting Day?

The Prime Minister: The next Sitting Day is the day appointed for the Prayer.

CONSOLIDATION BILLS

Report from the Joint Committee with Minutes of Evidence in respect of the War Damage Bill [Lords] (pending in the Lords), brought up and read; to lie upon the Table, and to be printed [No. 73].

MESSAGE FROM THE LORDS

That they have passed a Bill intituled "An Act to make better provision for regulating the capital of the Grand Union Canal Company, and the administration of their affairs; to confer further powers on the Company, and for other purposes."—[Grand Union Canal Company Bill [Lords].

GRAND UNION CANAL COMPANY BILL [Lords]

Read the First time, and referred to the Examiners of Petitions for Private Bills.

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE

Ordered,
That the Proceedings on Government Business be exempted, at this day's Sitting, from the provisions of the Standing Order (Sittings of the House)".—[The Prime Minister.]

Orders of the Day — CATERING WAGES BILL

Considered in Committee [Progress, 1st April].

[Major MILNER in the Chair]

Clause 14 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

CLAUSE 15.—(Orders and regulations.)

Captain Peter Macdonald: I beg to move, in page 11, line 24, to leave out from "and" to the end of the Sub-section, and to insert:

shall not come into force until each House of Parliament has sat on forty days after the order or regulation has been laid before it, and if either House within the next forty days on which it has sat after the order or regulation has been laid before it resolves that the order or regulation he annulled it shall thenceforth be void but without prejudice to the making of a new order or regulation.
The reason I move this Amendment is that as the Clause stands it is possible for an Order to be laid on the Table for 40 days during part of which time Parliament is not sitting. I think it is only reasonable that Parliament should have sufficient time in which to consider any Order.

Sir Herbert Williams: I hope that the Minister will give very careful consideration to this Amendment, because we are drifting rapidly away from the principles of the Rules (Publication) Act, under which there is an elaborate procedure to ensure that before Rules are made they are open to examination and inspection and to give everybody concerned ample opportunities for making representations. Recently, and more particularly under the Emergency Powers Act, where I admit it is necessary for quick action to be taken, an Order has immediate operation before Parliament has had any opportunity to consider it. There cannot be the same urgency in this case, and therefore I think we ought to shift from the basis that the Order comes into operation as soon as the Minister makes it but can subsequently be annulled by a Prayer in Parliament to the basis that it does not come into operation until 40 days-after it has been laid. In that period there will be an opportunity to submit a Prayer and possibly annul the Order before any action is taken. In other words, the House of Commons—in fact, both Houses of Parliament—ought as far as possible to retain effective control over legislation, except where on grounds of urgency that control ought not to be retained. Therefore, I think there is a very powerful case for this Amendment on democratic grounds, because we are drifting much too rapidly in the direction of Fascism. Much of our legislation to-day is in principle essentially Fascist, and I am horrified to see that the least opposition to Fascism comes from hon. Members of the Labour Party, who do not appreciate the real significance of what is happening.

The Minister of Labour (Mr. Ernest Bevin): I would ask my hon. and gallant Friend to withdraw his Amendment. I was very careful about this matter, because I knew that I should upset the hon. Member for South Croydon (Sir H. Williams) if I introduced any innovation. This Clause is on the lines of a Clause in a Bill which was passed in 1909, when Fascism had not been heard of.

Sir H. Williams: The right hon. Gentleman appears to forget that syndicalism, of which many trade unions in this country were ardent supporters, is historically a part of Fascism.

Mr. Bevin: Syndicalism had not been adumbrated by Tom Mann when the Bill to which I referred was passed in 1909. It was in 1910; so I want to correct the hon. Member's historical knowledge. In drafting this Clause, I have stuck to the procedure concerning wages board Orders which has been on the Statute Book for many years. I have an additional reason why I think the Amendment should be withdrawn, and that is that I do not think the discussion of wages board Orders is appropriate to the House of Commons unless a wages board really outrages an industry in some way. It has already been agreed that I should have the power to refer back on representations, and all that kind of thing. The greatest care has been taken in this matter, and therefore I would ask the Committee to stick to the Clause, which is in strict conformity with all the minimum wage machinery introduced into Parliament over the last 40 years.

Major Petherick: I could not hear all that the Minister was saying, particularly the first part, but I am sure it was a very good speech. I did, however, hear the latter part, and it is on that that I propose to focus my remarks. The Minister based his case largely on precedent. Precedent is an extremely valuable study. We move from precedent to precedent but none the less I think we ought to consider each precedent and see what has been the result. Over the last few years, particularly since the war, we have seen Parliament gradually losing control to some extent. We have seen freedom being narrowed down from precedent to precedent. The fact that we have established a precedent in one case is not a good reason, if it has been proved to be a bad precedent, why we should

continue it. I agree with my hon. and gallant Friend who moved the Amendment and with my hon. Friend the Member for South Croydon (Sir H. Williams) about this Amendment, because I feel that Parliament should retain some active control over legislation. The Minister's argument that Parliament is not a suitable place in which to discuss wages boards may be to some extent true, except in the circumstances which he mentioned, but if Parliament is not the place to discuss wages boards, why lay Orders on the Table at all? I think Parliament should keep its control. I think it is wrong to forestall the views of Parliament by saying an Order is to come into force immediately, unless it is an emergency Order such as was mentioned by the hon. Member for South Croydon. I hope the Minister will reconsider this point, not only in relation to this Bill but from the point of view of the whole structure of legislation and the question of Parliamentary control.

Amendment negatived.

Clause ordered to stand part of the Bill.

CLAUSE 16.—(Application to the Crown.)

Mr. Craik Henderson: I beg to move, in page II, line 38, after "with," to insert "any business or."
I move this Amendment in order that we may have explained why, if this Measure is to apply to civilian workers employed "by or on behalf of the Crown" in connection with any industrial undertaking its beneficent provisions are not 10 apply to civilian workers employed by the Government in other respects. Is there any particular reason for this?

The Solicitor-General (Major Sir David Maxwell Fyfe): The point raised by my hon. Friend has given us considerable anxiety, and we have directed special attention to it. As will be seen from the Clause, we wish to cover civilian workers but not to cover Services. My hon. Friend will appreciate that we do not want to cover the National Fire Service or the Civil Defence Reserve. If my hon. Friend has in mind certain special difficulties, such as the question of the State management districts or certain canteens, I can give him the undertaking—and I think it is a matter which can suitably be dealt with by undertaking—on behalf of my


right hon. Friends the Home Secretary, the Secretary of State for Scotland and the Minister of Labour, that they all agree that these matters should, in principle, be covered and that these conditions should apply to them. My hon. Friend has, I know, considered this Bill very carefully, and he will appreciate the difficulty of finding the exact words in which to express that intention, but as I have clearly stated the line we desire to draw we think our words are most apt to draw that line, I think my hon. Friend can rest assured that they cover his point.

Major Petherick: I am not sure whether it is appropriate on this Clause to ask whether local authorities are covered.

The Solicitor-General: Local authorities are covered to the extent that has been laid down, but I understand that this question may arise for discussion on another point, and I suggest that we should not go into it at this stage. My hon. and gallant Friend can rest assured that they are covered to the extent to which they are carrying on catering activities.

Captain P. Macdonald: Is it not a fact that unless this Amendment is made, establishments in Carlisle and other places under the State management scheme will be exempt from this Measure?

The Solicitor-General: I have expressly dealt with that point and given an undertaking to the effect that they would be dealt with by the machinery in the Bill. I explained that whether the words "industrial, undertaking" actually cover that kind of business is a matter for discussion, but the intention of the Government—and I think it is an appropriate matter to be dealt with by undertaking—is that they should be covered and will be covered.

Mr. Rhys Davies: Is it intended to bring in an Amendment at a later stage to cover this point, which is very important?

The Solicitor-General: I wanted to make it clear that we quite agreed on the difficulty of finding the exact words, but we think that these are the best words, coupled with the undertaking which I have given on behalf of the three Ministers concerned. If my hon. Friend

or any other hon. Member can suggest any improvement, I shall be pleased to consider it, but, having given my consideration to the point, I think these are the best words we can find.

Mr. Craik Henderson: I appreciate what the learned Solicitor-General has said. Personally, I am doubtful whether these are the appropriate words, but in view of my hon. and learned Friend's conciliatory and helpful attitude and in the hope that between now and the next stage of the proceedings on the Bill some more appropriate words may be found, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the Amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Clause ordered to stand part of the Bill.

CLAUSE 17.—(Interpretation.)

Sir Harold Webbe: I beg to move, in page 12, line 4, to leave out Sub-section (2).
I think this is an Amendment which ought to receive the attention of the Committee. This is the most important definition Clause in the whole Measure. Reference was made to it at an earlier stage in the consideration of the Bill, when Clause I was under discussion, and various questions were put to the Minister as to the meaning of certain words. We were then referred to Clause 17 for the definition of a "person employed". I submit that the explanation then given of the words in the Bill was not satisfactory, and I ask the Solicitor-General or someone else on behalf of the Government to give us a more precise idea than we have yet had of the meaning of these extraordinary words in the Sub-section:
any worker who, for the purposes of any undertaking or part of an undertaking, performs any work in pursuance of an arrangement express or implied made by the worker by way of trade with the persons carrying on that undertaking.
What limit is intended by this Subsection (2)? I know that hon. Members do not like the quotation of absurd examples which are likely to occur, but surely the man who delivers newspapers to a hotel is performing work under an arrangement made "by way of trade" with that hotel. Is it intended that he should be regarded as an employee of the undertaking? This phrase is so completely indefinite that it seems to me that the Bill will be a gift for the lawyers for years to come. I do not


know whether it is the intention of the Minister to present the legal profession with opportunities for discussing such points as this from year to year, but here is a vital definition Clause, which seems to me about as indefinite as any Clause could possibly be. Therefore I ask for some indication of the limitation to be placed on these words:
in pursuance of an arrangement express or implied.
I can conceive of nothing which is ever done by, or for, or to, or with any kind of catering undertaking which is not done by arrangement express or implied. Anyone who has in any way the remotest connection with a catering undertaking must fall under this definition of employee. I hope we shall have some definiteness brought into this definition Clause.

The Chairman: I think I should point out to the Committee that we have, at any rate in part, discussed this matter already. I hope therefore that the Committee may agree to the discussion being a brief one.

Mr. Colegate: It is true that we may have discussed this matter previously, but the fact remains that we have not received satisfaction, in the sense that no form of words has been given to us which clears up this obscurity. My hon. Friend has just suggested the case of a deliverer of newspapers; I wish to put forward the case, which is rather more pertinent, of the window cleaner. Very often a large number of men occupy a very considerable portion of their time going round in a certain order the windows of a hotel, which is under a contract with a window-cleaning company. Do such men come under the interpretation? It is obvious that I am not a lawyer. There may be some peculiar interpretation, but we cannot get away from the fact that a man engaged in window cleaning in a hotel, under a regular contract of service for a window-cleaning company, might come under the definition.
I have made a number of inquiries in my constituency, and I find that the Bill has given rise to a great deal of uneasiness, for special reasons connected with the war. In certain areas in my constituency, a vast number of people have been brought into the catering industry because the Government have definitely asked people to do what they

can to put up a number of workers who have been brought into the locality. My constituents are wondering how far they are affected by the Bill, and it is not unfair to ask the Government to make a definite statement and to say whether or not those people come under the Bill. I therefore ask the Solicitor-General to give us a definition which will meet us on this point.

The Solicitor-General: I am very chary of taking up much time of the Committee on this Amendment, not out of any disrespect for my hon. Friend who has raised it, but because I spent a good deal of time on the first day of the Committee stage in dealing with this point. Therefore, I propose to put my answer quite shortly, and I hope the Committee will not take it as any disrespect to itself. The first point I tried to make clear was that the words "arrangement by way of trade" are used to cover the case where there may be a contract which has not got that power to control the method of doing the work which is the essential of a contract of service. It will be within the recollection of the Committee that I developed that point at some length on the previous occasion.
The other points I want to deal with are the safeguards, on which my hon. Friend the Member for the Abbey Division (Sir H. Webbe) placed importance a few moments ago. Those are that the arrangement must only be one by way of trade. The Committee will appreciate that these words have a saving effect for those cases which concern my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Penryn and Falmouth (Major Petherick), the border-line cases. It is left as an arrangement by way of trade, so that it is open to the court to find, in a proper case, that it is merely an arrangement and not an arrangement by way of trade.
The second point is that the arrangement must be with the proprietors of the undertaking; and the third point, which was worrying my hon. Friend the Member for the Abbey Division, is that the work must be that of the undertaking and for the purposes of the undertaking. I must ask him to take it from me, because this is as I understand the law of the position, that it would rule out the newspaper deliverer and the window cleaner. I did develop this matter at considerable length before, and I now put, with those points,


the gist of the argument again. I hope that the Committee will now decide that this is a definition apt to cover and safeguard the particular classes of worker with whom we are concerned.

Sir Waldron Smithers: I am sorry to prolong the Debate. [HON. MEMBERS: "Why?"] Because the Chairman has asked us to be as short as possible. I will be as brief as possible. I will ask the Minister to be a little more specific in telling us the classes of employees in these undertakings who come within or without the scope of the Bill. I wish to put forward three instances from my own Division. The widespread nature of the catering business brings in all sorts of people, and I ask that these specific questions be replied to. At one hotel in my Division the proprietor is very keen on horses. He keeps horses, and also an ostler. He lets the horses out for riding and for work. At the present moment he is doing work under Government contract. Does the ostler come within the scope of the Bill? At another hotel the proprietor, a very pushing man of great initiative, runs two or three motor cars for hire purposes. There is a chauffeur who drives those cars and looks after them, and who is housed within the buildings of the establishment. Would the chauffeur come within the purview of the Bill? There is another case of a man in the country who keeps a very good hotel and has tried very hard to comply with the food Regulations and to help the food industry. He has done his best to grew as much stuff as he can. He produces not only vegetables and eggs, but he keeps chickens, ducks and geese for the use of the clients of his hotel. Some of those clients are officers serving in Government Departments who cannot get home, and who go to the hotel, not only for their rest, but for their food and drink. Would the man who looks after the production of foodstuffs—there is, as a matter of fact, more than one man—come within the purview of the Bill? All these people are strongly opposed to the Bill, both workers and managers, and they want to know where they stand.

Major Petherick: I do not think the matter is really quite clear, in spite of the speech of the Solicitor-General. My own view is that confusion has been caused

owing to the fact that the definitions are spread between Clause 1 and the interpretation Clause which we are now discussing. I do not wish to go into discussion of the sort of point which we had in the earlier stages of the Bill, but I would ask the Solicitor-General whether, taking Clause I and the present interpretation Clause together, I should be right in saying that, in order for a worker to come under the Bill, three main conditions would have to be fulfilled. One is that the undertaking must be wholly or mainly concerned in supplying food and drink. The second is that the workers must be employed in such an undertaking, as one can see by Clause 2 (1). The third is that there must be an arrangement, express or implied, between the workers and their employer. Would it not therefore be better, in view of the confusion that exists, to re-arrange as it were part of Clause 1 and the interpretation Clause—put them together in the same Clause—and thus make it perfectly clear in the Bill what are the conditions which have to be fulfilled before a worker comes under the Bill? I commend that to my hon. and learned Friend and ask him to look into it to see whether it is possible so that the worker or the employer can look at one Clause of the Bill and see whether they are being covered or not.

Mr. Craik Henderson: I rise to express my anxiety about this interpretation Clause. I really would ask the Solicitor-General to consider it again, because in my opinion it goes much further than he has indicated. This "implied" arrangement has a very wide effect, and "by way of trade" is a phrase requiring a good deal of consideration in conjunction with this wide power over private arrangements. I ask him that this Clause should be very carefully considered to prevent future difficulties.

The Solicitor-General: In answer to my hon. Friend the Member for Chislehurst (Sir W. Smithers), I ask the sympathy of the Committee in giving a decision on what must be an incomplete statement of the facts. But I want on the other hand to be quite frank with the Committee, and on my understanding of what my hon. Friend said the three persons he mentioned did work for the purposes of the undertaking, in the employment of the undertaking, that is, under an arrangement with the proprietors by way of trade, and my


view on the necessarily incomplete information, is that they are in the Bill.

Sir. W. Smithers: Did my hon. and learned Friend say they are or are not in the Bill?

The Solicitor-General: I said that they are within the purview of the Bill. In answer to my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Penryn and Falmouth (Major Petherick), I have considered, and I have gratefully received letters from hon. Members, one in particular, about this question, and have addressed my mind to it, and I feel it is better that the question of activities and undertakings should be dealt with first of all. I submit it is dealt with quite clearly—and then we should in the ordinary way deal in a definition Clause with what is an extended definition of "worker." I feel there are certain difficulties which have presented themselves to hon. Members, and that the position is made clearer by separating consideration of "undertaking" and activities from the consideration of "worker". I want to assure my hon. and gallant Friend that I have not ignored this point, but have directed my mind to it.
With regard to the point of my hon. Friend the Member for North-East Leeds (Mr. Craik Henderson), I am afraid that I do not share his difficulty about the word "implied". I think it is absolutely essential that you must cover both implied arrangements and express arrangements; otherwise you will be in the intolerable position of people saying, "There is no contract in writing, no formal arrangement." In that way you would have evasion of the provisions of the Bill. In our view, and I personally believe it is right, this is a protective Bill. Therefore, you have to draw the provisions largely and generously to give a full measure of protection. That is what we have done, and I personally would ask my hon. Friend to consider, because he knows the difficulties of limiting the Measure to express contracts, whether in this matter it is not necessary to cover implied arrangements as we have done.

Captain P. Macdonald: I feel rather alarmed at the Clause as it now stands. The more I hear, the more fearful I become. I agree it is very difficult to decide what should come within the provisions of this Bill. At the same time the right hon. Gentleman must know for whom he

is legislating, and if he has in mind persons directly employed in an hotel, he ought to have some idea who they are. What I want to know is whether the Bill covers such ancillary trades as have been mentioned. For instance, do laundries come within the purview of this Bill, or chimney sweeps, or plumbers, people who are very often employed by an hotel? I would ask the hon. and learned Gentleman to consider this in his difficulty in trying to lay down a definite rule. If an employee in an ancillary industry is already covered by a trade board will the right hon. Gentleman give an undertaking that that employee will not be brought within the purview of this Bill?

Mr. Bevin: I gave an undertaking the other day that they would not be covered by two boards, and I undertook between then and the Report stage to consider words to make the question of duplication quite clear. I think the hon. and gallant Member is covered on his laundry point.

Lieut.-Colonel Sir Cuthbert Headlam: What is meant by the words "by way of trade"? Is that the usual expression to mean "by way of service"? I take it that this interpretation means that all those who are employed directly or indirectly in the catering trade should be included in this definition. Therefore, I want to know whether the words "by way of trade" mean what I should call "by way of service." I only want an explanation.

The Solicitor-General: I ask, if the Committee will allow me, to deal with this point briefly, because I have emphasised it and dealt with it at considerable length earlier. The position is that if the word used were "service," that would connote a right to control the way in which the other party to the contract does his work. We want to cover possible positions where that control is absent, and therefore we have said, "by way of trade," including those words in order that a bona fide family arrangement, something that is merely a little help being given by a member of a family now and again, will not be included. That is the point of the words. I think they are the best words.

Sir W. Smithers: I am sorry to return to the attack, but the reply of the hon. and learned Gentleman was so unsatisfactory because really there are many people up


and down the country in what are called the ancillary trades. They ought to know where they stand under the provisions of this Bill, because I think this Bill creates the impression in the minds of the public that it is a Bill, rightly or wrongly, to protect or to have proper arrangements between the proprietors of catering establishments, their scullery maids, washers-ups, waiters and all that kind of thing. Does the hon. and learned Gentleman really tell me seriously that the ostler, the chauffeur and the gardener come within the provisions of the Bill? It is really hard to believe. This is a Bill, as I understand it, to regulate wages and hours of work. But the ostler in charge of horses has to be there seven days a week, early in the morning and late at night, to feed and water them. Suppose the chauffeur comes into this Bill. If he is told that he can work only so many hours a day, and then there is a late job to be done, is he prevented from doing it? The gardener's job is seasonal. In the winter he has to work shorter hours, and in the spring and summer he has to be up early and then to go back at night to do the watering. Not even the Minister of Labour can overcome the laws of nature. I would ask that we should have a better definition of this Clause. Unless there is a better definition given, or an undertaking by the Government that we shall have a better definition and a clearly defined list, in a Schedule of people who are included, I shall have to divide the Committee on this matter.

Sir Irving Albery: What I am mainly concerned about is the person who has to try to ascertain whether he comes under the Bill. It appears to me from what the learned Solicitor-General said, and from the course of the Debate so far, that everybody who happens to be employed—interpreting that very widely—by a caterer will come under the provisions of the Bill. If that be so, it does not matter very much that there is no Schedule stating who is within the scope of the Bill and who is outside, because practically everybody is within it. In that case, it would have been better if that could have been definitely stated here. Then we should know where we are. I do not think a Bill ought to go through the House with a Clause in it which, however perfect it may seem to the learned gentlemen of the legal pro-

fession, is going to leave people who come under it in a state of confusion, and which consequently will lead to a number of legal cases. If we are to be assured that the meaning of this Clause is that every conceivable person employed in the catering industry is to be brought within the purview of the Bill, people will know where they are. If, on the other hand, there are certain forms of employment which will not be included, this Clause needs revising. It would be far better to have some Schedule that will say which people are brought in and which people are left outside. If there are exceptions, information will have to be given, and I think it would be much better that it should be made clear in the Bill.

Brigadier-General Clifton Brown: May I express my agreement with those who have asked for a clearer definition? We do not know what we are voting for in the Bill. The Solicitor-General said that we should look at this from the protection point of view. That is what we want to do. We want to stop interference with the trade unions which some of these people might come under. This Clause has been arranged from the point of view of the towns. What about the country? What about the seaside places? What about the boatman, it may be on the Thames and it may be at the seaside, who works for the inn-keeper? Does he come under this provision, with the gardener and others? That would be an interference with businesses which have nothing at all to do with catering. This is a Bill to interfere, and not to protect. If the Minister would look into the question from the point of view of the country, and see the damage that is going to be done by interference, instead of protection, he would think twice about not defining the position in a way that people will understand. The Minister when he talked to us privately upstairs—very persuasively, I thought—told us that this Commission was going to deal with "A" "B" and "C" hotels. The "A" people—those who look after the big hotels and so on—will be in a quite different position from the "B" and "C" people. I am thinking of the "C" hotels. Will the Minister assure us that the people responsible on this Commission for the wages and welfare of the small men of the "C" hotels are going to treat them differently from the people of the "A"


hotels, and are not going to interfere with the ancillary trades?

Sir H. Webbe: I took the responsibility of moving this Amendment, although my name did not appear on the Paper, because I felt that the Clause was a vital one and that it was essential that we should have a clear definition in the definition Clause. The whole of the discussion has proved, to me at any rate, ample justification for my having moved the Amendment, We have had instance after instance of doubt brought before the Committee. My hon. and learned Friend has intervened three or four times, and, with all respect, I would say that every time he has introduced a fresh doubt without resolving the one which he sought to dispel. He has made statements which leave some of us not knowing whether we are on our heads or our heels. He says that the cleaning of the windows of an hotel is not part of the undertaking. Surely the cleaning of the windows of an hotel is just as much part of the business as making the beds. If that kind of thing is to happen now, what will happen when the courts have to determine the meaning of this quite indefinite Clause? It is clear that we could go on all day producing doubts which no one on the front bench could resolve. I make bold to say that there are not two Members present who would agree on what this Clause means. I would urge the Minister and my hon. and learned Friend to accept the suggestion made by my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Penryn and Falmouth (Major Petherick) and to reconsider this whole matter between now and the Report stage, with a view to bringing to the House some definition which is understandable not only by the lawyers—and the lawyers to-day all differ as to what the position is—but to the ordinary man-in-the-street, the long-suffering citizen who wants to understand the rules by which he is bound. If my hon. and learned Friend will look into this matter with a view to producing some definition which means something and which is not vague and indefinite, as at present, I will not press the Amendment.

Viscount Hinchingbrooke: I think the Committee is rather unhappy about the meaning of the Subsection. I would join with my hon. Friend the Member for the Abbey Division (Sir H. Webbe) in asking the Solicitor-General

to be good enough to look into this question before the next stage. I do not think the Committee would wish to see an enormous Schedule of the various occupations attached to the Bill. It would take on the character rather of the Minister's own great Schedule of Reserved Occupations, with 100 or 150 pages. What I would like, with great deference, to suggest is that words might be inserted into this Sub-section making it clear that the greater part of a particular individual's time must be associated with the catering business, or alternatively that he must receive the greater part of his pay from the catering business, before the terms of the Act would apply to him. If some such undertaking could be given, it would help the Committee.

Sir W. Smithers: Would the Minister also consider to what extent part-time people employed in the industry come within the purview of the Bill? There are one or two other classes of work which have been mentioned to me. What about the dance bands? What about the artists who give shows at some of these hotels? The Minister wants to make the hotel business more popular. Suppose he starts casinos. Would the croupiers come under the Bill? As the hon. Member for the Abbey division (Sir H. Webbe) has said, we should let the people of this country know where they stand. I do not see how, after all the arguments which have been put forward, the Government can refuse to reconsider the matter.

The Solicitor-General: I have listened carefully to everything that my hon. Friends have said, and I realise that my noble Friend the Member for South Dorset (Viscount Hinchingbrooke), who has shown great sympathy with the purposes of the Bill, has some difficulty over this matter, and that a number of hon. Members are in the same position. I personally have no difficulty, and I think it is correct that I have answered quite frankly and clearly any point that has been put to me. But, as I said before, I want to do everything I can to make the definition as clear and free from doubt as any definition can be. If my hon. Friends desire it, I am prepared to consider it again. I am not giving any undertaking that it will be changed, but it will be considered fully and definitely, and with great sympathy with the views


put forward. I do not think that it would be right to go any further than that, but I am prepared to give the matter full consideration, and if any of my hon. Friends who have spoken have any ideas to put forward, I shall be pleased if they will communicate with me, as they have done before.

Sir H. Webbe: As I moved this Amendment, I suppose it would be in Order for me to ask leave to withdraw it. But, frankly, I am not very happy about the undertaking that my hon. and learned Friend has given. He has said that he will look at it again, but he will not give any undertaking that he will put forward an Amendment on the Report stage to give us a definition which will mean anything to hon. Members, or even to his legal colleagues. Merely to say that he will look at it again without any indication that, on the Report stage, something will be proposed to meet the very evident criticisms and doubts expressed does not seem to me to go very far. As I understand it—and I am only a junior Member—it will not be possible for us on the Report stage to discuss this particular Clause again as such, and we must rely upon some Amendment being put down which will enable us to consider this matter again properly and see whether the feelings of anxiety, which, I think, I may claim are fairly widely shared at the present moment, are to some extent allayed. I hope that the Minister or my hon. and learned Friend will give us some rather more definite assurance that something will be done to meet the obvious and agreed troubles before we withdraw this Amendment and proceed to the next Amendment.

Earl Winterton: May I point out to my hon. Friend, who said that he is apparently a junior Member, that there is a very simple expedient of deciding whether he or the right hon. Gentleman is right? We have discussed this matter for a long time, and obviously we are no nearer an agreement between the Government and hon. Members than before. There is a simple and expeditious way of deciding whether or not the Government or the hon. Members are wrong, and that is to go to a Division.

Sir Adam Maitland: May I suggest to my hon. Friend the Member

for the Abbey Division (Sir H. Webbe), to whose views I listened with great interest, that it would be a tactical mistake to divide on this issue after the most explicit undertaking from the learned Solicitor-General. If hon. Gentlemen who are interested in this Amendment insist on a Division and are defeated, they will have lost their contact. In all that has been said there has been no consideration whatever given to the common sense which, it is hoped, will be brought to bear by the Commission. It is assumed that these exceptional instances will be brought under the Bill without any definition. I must make that reservation, but still having some sympathy with them from the point of view of whether it is possible to get a fair revision, I would ask my hon. Friends to accept the undertaking.

Sir H. Webbe: I have not the slightest desire to divide the Committee on this matter. There is no clear point. I am not at issue with the Government as to whether there should be a definition at all, but I merely ask for some satisfaction. If I can interpret what has been said by my hon. and learned Friend in promising to look into this as meaning that he will make a sincere effort to produce more clarity between now and the Report stage, then I shall ask leave to withdraw the Amendment.

Sir W. Smithers: With great respect, I do not think that under Parliamentary procedure the undertaking of the learned Solicitor-General is worth anything at all. Will he undertake to put down something on the Report stage in order to give us an opportunity to reconsider and rediscuss this question?

Amendment negatived.

Clause ordered to stand part of the Bill.

CLAUSE 18.—(Application to Scotland)

The Chairman: I propose to select the Amendment in the name of the hon. Member for Dumbartonshire (Mr. McKinlay) and other hon. Members, and perhaps it will be convenient to discuss that Amendment and the next Amendment in his name and that of his hon. Friends together.

Mr. Mathers: I beg to move, in page 12, to leave out lines 12 to 20.
I had hoped that, in putting this Amendment to the Committee on behalf of hon. Friends and myself, I would be doing it in the presence of one of the Scottish Law Officers. It is not quite the same to put the point that I wish to make to an English Law Officer, who is a Scotsman. It does not work out in the way that I wished. The point is a very simple one. There is some fear in the minds of hon. Members and myself that these means provided to an employer of avoiding responsibility for a breach of the Act prove an outlet that is too easy for him. Really the Amendment to leave out lines 12 to 20 of the Clause is moved in the interests of the worker who may be affected. One can see the possibility of an employer taking the action of putting up a notice in his establishment laying down certain instructions for the benefit of the staff, but at the same time letting it be known to the staff by word of mouth that he would not expect them strictly to adhere to the Regulations set out in the printed formula that he hangs up in a convenient place in the establishment. It is to deal with a point of that kind that it is suggested this particular part of the Clause should be omitted, although I have to agree that for my own part I look upon the wording here as more direct, simple and clear to understand than the portions in Clause 11 for which these words have to be used as a substitute to apply to Scotland. Sub-sections (2) and (3) of Clause 11 have been worked upon in the past in respect of other Acts of Parliament, and I am not so well informed about the particular formula that is set out here to take their place and to apply to Scotland. Although it might appear that those Subsections give very great opportunity for prosecution and litigation, I understand they have not caused trouble to any considerable extent. Perhaps the Government front bench can give me similar information about the words that are set out here which we are seeking to have set aside in order particularly to get to know exactly what the position is on the lines I have indicated.
You indicated, Major Milner, that the two Amendments should be taken together. It seems to me that another point is dealt with in the second Amendment, and perhaps it would be well if I allowed, with your permission, the Amendment as I have moved it to be dealt with without

proceeding at the moment to the other point.

The Solicitor-General: I am highly conscious of my imperfections in rising to answer a point which is really concerned with the law of Scotland. I can only assure my hon. Friend in mitigation that a good deal of the blood of Scottish lawyers runs in my veins, and I hope that I may be able to satisfy him in this imperfect way. The difference between the two provisions depends on the different systems of instituting prosecutions in the two countries. I take the English system first, because it comes first in order in the Bill. Clause 11 contemplates the English system, where anyone can institute proceedings by laying an information. In Scotland proceedings have to be instituted by the Lord Advocate, and by the Procurator Fiscal in country districts. Therefore, the provision which was apt to meet the English situation of letting the defendant, that is, the employer, on the first information come forward in turn and say, "I am not to blame, but 'A.B.' is to blame," would not do and would not work in Scotland.
We have to try and keep the equity of the matter balanced between the two countries, and therefore we had to try and find words. I think that my hon. Friend was inclined to agree that the words are not in themselves inapt in dealing with the situation, and I hope he will see that the employer has to prove to the satisfaction of the court, (1), that he used due diligence to secure compliance with the Act and any relative Regulation or Order made thereunder, and, (2), that the default was due to somebody else The only difficulty is that you cannot bring that other person to the court, but it would be open to the Fiscal to bring him before the court.
I was very interested in the example that my hon. Friend gave of the employer who might put up a notice on the wall and then say, "Do not bother about it." I have actually had experience on this point, and it may reassure my hon. Friend. It was a Factory Act case where the employer provided a guard and then said to the boy who was working the machine, "Do not worry about putting on that guard; it will merely hold up your work." The court before whom he appeared said that that was not providing a guard and was not in compliance with


the Regulation, and dealt with the matter accordingly. I happen to have had that experience, and if it interests my hon. Friend I will show him the matter at any time he likes. So I think that his doubt, which I am very anxious should be assuaged, is really dealt with, and I hope that this will prove a workable method. It has not a statutory history—I want to be fair to my hon. Friend—but they are the best words that we can find to make the position similar in both countries and to put employers and workers in the same position on either side of the Tweed.

Mr. Rhys Davies: I would like to say one or two words on this very important point. The right hon. Gentleman and the learned Solicitor-General probably know that we have had conversations with the Minister of Labour on this very serious provision. Clause II, which this Clause amends for the purposes of Scotland, follows the Section in the Trade Boards Act, and although I was a little alarmed at Clause n, which this; Clause amends, I have been assured that the number of prosecutions that have cropped up has been almost infinitestimal. It occurred to me that the Government might some day consider this problem, especially when the prosecution lies against the employee, when the benefit of the offence committed by the employee inures to the employer. I am connected with the distributive trade, and there, although an employer need not tell an employee, a good deal is often done by winking. In this sort of trade business is not carried on exactly as if it were being carried on in a factory or a coalmine, where things are very much more specific.
The next point I wish to put is this—and I have raised it before in connection with coupon offences, where the prosecution lies with the Board of Trade. I think I am right in saying that in one case the employees were heavily fined, and so was the firm, but practically all the profits that inured went to the firm and not to the employees. I trust that the Ministry of Labour will be good enough to see to it that when they institute prosecutions they will not do what these words imply to the layman—almost invite the employer to excuse himself and put the blame on the employee. I

have no legal training, but I think that if the Solicitor-General reads this Clause in conjunction with Clause II, he will see that a very smart lawyer, assisting an employer, would almost take it for granted that his job would be to get the employer out of his difficulty in a court of law and throw the responsibility on the employee.
Finally, I have always understood that where there was an offence such as watering milk or selling underweight the employer and not the employee was prosecuted. The employer then had his redress by dismissing the employee. I always thought that that was the case. However, if the Ministry of Labour will be good enough to see that no prosecution will lie against the employee where the benefit of the offence committed by the employee inures to the employer, I shall be grateful.

Amendment negatived.

Mr. Mathers: I beg to move, in page 12, line 21, at the end, to add:
and
(c) 'licensing justices' shall mean 'licensing court,' 'intoxicating liquor' shall mean 'exerciseable liquor' and references to the Licensing (Scotland) Acts, 1903 to 1934, shall be substituted for references to the Licensing Acts, 1910 to 1934.
This Amendment is an attempt to safeguard the separate Scottish position. I notice that a curious misprint has crept into the Amendment on the Order Paper, and I must say it is the first time I have seen liquor described as "exerciseable" liquor. I am sure we all realise what is meant and can only conjure up in our imagination what "exerciseable liquor" would be. This Amendment has been put down to ascertain from the Government whether separate provision as defined under the Licensing (Scotland) Acts is properly safeguarded in this Measure. Failing that, we ask that words shall be used in order to safeguard the Scottish position properly.

The Solicitor-General: I have gone into the position as it obtains in Scotland with such care as I could, and I can see nothing in the Bill which will adversely affect the licensing position or the powers of the licensing justices in any way. The only possible imaginary set of circumstances which I have been able to conjure up is the idea that some wages board might insist on such intervals for workers that they would not be able to be there at the


permitted hours, but clearly that is such a stupid idea as to the way a wages board would work that I do not think we need consider it very seriously. I have tried to fit in various sets of circumstances that could arise, and this matter has been considered carefully in the Department from a practical point of view and by Parliamentary counsel, and the views of the Scottish Office have been sought, I understand. I have not seen the Scottish Office myself, but I understand that they have been consulted in the matter. Yes, I have now been assured in the usual way that they have been seen. Everyone who has considered this matter takes the view that it would not have any adverse effect.

Mr. Mathers: With that assurance, which naturally removes all my scruples, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the Amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Clause ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 19 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

NEW CLAUSE—(Exclusion of workers employed in ships.)

(1) This Act shall not apply in relation to workers employed in any ship.

(2) In this section the expression "ship" includes every description of vessel used in navigation.—[Mr. Bevin.]

Brought up, and read the First time.

Mr. Bevin: I beg to move, "That the Clause be read a Second time."
This new Clause is designed to exclude workers employed in ships from this Bill.

Mr. Colegate: I suppose the Minister and the Solicitor-General have reassured themselves that there is no loophole here? We remember that during the time of prohibition in America there was a great loophole, and while I do not wish to include genuine ships, I do not want ships moored off the banks of the Thames to be excluded from the principle of this Bill. We want it to be properly enforced, and I would ask the Minister to make certain that there is no loophole.

Mr. Mathers: I, too, am rather concerned about this new Clause, because it appears to me to shut out from the Bill, for example, staffs of railway steamers. I am thinking, particularly, of the railway steamers that ply in the Firth of Clyde and which have a catering staff on board

who belong to the hotel staffs of the railway companies. They should not be shut out from the benefits of this Bill, and I would like to be reassured on that point. I have not fully studied this new Clause, but on reading it simply now it appears that the staffs of steamers plying in the Clyde catering for passengers would not benefit, and they should be entitled to benefit.

Mr. Bevin: I went into this matter very carefully, We decided first of all to exclude overseas ships and ships going outside the three-mile limit. We were left with only some half-dozen ships on the Clyde——

Mr. Mathers: No. Far more!

Mr. Bevin: I am talking about those not outside the three-mile limit. When you get outside the three-mile limit you become involved with the Merchant Shipping Act, and I did not want a conflict between this Bill and that Act. The number of other ships involved was so small, and as regards ships that were running—except, probably, steamers running from Hampton Court to Oxford—it is doubtful whether they would be wholly or mainly engaged in catering. I preferred to exclude them rather than involve them in procedure under that head. In any case, most of the catering staff on steamers on the Clyde are, to our knowledge covered by collective agreements in the Railway Service. I thought it better to exclude vessels, because once you start on the definition of a ship outside the three-mile limit you become involved in all kinds of complications with foreign and British ships. I think it is better, for the purpose of working this Measure, not to burden it with such a narrow thing. I cannot believe that anybody would buy a ship and anchor it on the Thames for the purpose of saving a few coppers in wages. Somebody might buy a ship and anchor it on the Thames, but the type of people who would go on it to enjoy themselves would, I imagine, have to pay for their enjoyment. I think my right hon. and learned Friend will agree that there is possibly a loophole in regard to somebody anchoring a ship on the Thames, but those who did it before lost so much money on the venture that I would prefer to take the risk.

Mr. Kirkwood: Will this provision cut out ships that sail on the Clyde?

Mr. Bevin: Yes. I happen to know they are all covered by collective agreements either through the Seamen's Union or the Railwaymen's Union. There was such a small portion that kept exclusively within the three-mile limit that I felt it was not wise to burden the Bill by having them in. I am satisfied that at the present moment the people concerned are really covered.

Mr. Mathers: The Minister's answer is a very powerful one in that respect. The only point that arises is whether the Bill takes away from the possibility of those agreements continuing and gives an opportunity to the railway people to say, "We need not make collective agreements in view of the fact that you are not covered by the Bill." I raised this matter far too suddenly to be insistent about it, but before the Bill reaches another stage I will make certain that the position of the workers is thoroughly considered in the light of the new Clause.

Question put, and agreed to.

Clause read a Second time, and added to the Bill.

NEW CLAUSE.—(Power to establish register.)

(1) Where a wages board has been established in respect of any workers, the Minister, after consulting the Commission and the wages board, may make regulations requiring all or any of the employers of any such workers to register for the purposes of this Act in the prescribed time and in the prescribed manner, giving such particulars as may be prescribed.

(2) If an employer fails to comply with any such regulations he shall be liable on summary conviction to a fine not exceeding twenty pounds.—[Mr. Bevin.]

Brought up, and read the First time.

Mr. Bevin: I beg to move, "That the Clause be read a Second time."
This new Clause gives effect to an undertaking I gave earlier that, instead of the Minister preparing a list in this case, he would prepare a register. The purpose of the new Clause is to safeguard against any possibility of abuse. I want to be quite frank and to tell the Committee that the new Clause does not take away the right of inspection; if some persons who ought to go on to the register do not go on it may be necessary to see that they do go on the register so as to make it effective. The Clause gives power to establish a register of establishments to which the Bill, as an Act,

will apply, and it has no other purpose. It does not, as the Amendment of the hon. and gallant Member for Penryn and Falmouth (Major Petherick) implies, preclude any person from entering the catering trade. It is the best thing I can devise to protect people from the fears that were expressed earlier in the Debate. I think that those in the seaside resorts and other places rather welcome this provision, because since I announced that I would be prepared to make it, I have had a good deal of support. I believe that if the provision is worked with the aid of the Commission and in the light of the advice which I propose to obtain, and which I shall announce later, it can be made a really useful thing and something that will remove all the fears that were expressed earlier.

Mr. Levy: Am I to understand that this register will be permanent? I ask the question for this reason. At the present time there are many people living in small houses who are housing their friends, or alternatively, billeting people who have been directed to them, and, as I understand it, these people come within the ambit of the Bill. They have no wish to become catering establishments and they will not desire to continue to be catering establishments. Am I to understand that because they are now billeting people who have been directed to them they will be registered and will remain within the ambit of the Bill as catering establishments, or will the register be only temporary as far as they are concerned, so that when they cease to have people billeted on them, they will be able to leave the register? Or will they be permanently on the register and so be subjected to inspection as to whether any people are lodging with them?

Mr. Bevin: Obviously, the register will be bound to change as circumstances change. A person may have a small establishment to-day and a big one in two or three years' time. People may go out of business, and so on. The occupancy of the house may change. Therefore, the register will change. I would call attention to the wording of the new Clause:
Where a wages board has been established in respect of any workers, the Minister, after consulting the Commission and the wages board, may make regulations requiring all or any of the employers of any such workers to register for the purposes of this Act.


The form of the register may be different according to the character of the people with whom one is dealing. There may be one type of hotel where the Commission will say that a certain type of register is quite satisfactory. The regulations may be altered to provide for other safeguards where, so to speak, one gets nearer to the bone as between private houses and other establishments. The Clause will allow the Commission to advise me on the form the regulations should take in order that the register may be adapted to meet the requirements of different sections of these services. I think the Clause is a useful one and one that will give the Commission a chance of advising me in such a way as to make groundless the fears that were expressed about inspectors roaming all over the place to find out what is going on.

Mr. Levy: My right hon. Friend has been dealing with hotels; I was dealing with small private houses. What I was asking was whether, in the case of private houses, when the billeted people leave, the people in these houses will automatically come off the register and thus be outside the ambit of the inspectors who, in my submission, will take away from the privacy of the Englishman's home, which is supposed to be his castle.

Mr. Evelyn Walkden: Surely, the assumption of the hon. Member for Elland (Mr. Levy) is entirely absurd. If the provision were to cover houses where people are compulsorily billeted or staying with friends, then practically every household in a mining village, where a son says, "I am not a part of the household in the ordinary sense of the term, but I am actually boarding with my mother," would be covered. Is it not absurd to suggest, in discussing this new Clause, that every little household in every hamlet, village, town and city where such a practice obtains is covered or is intended to be covered by the Bill? Will my right hon. Friend make it clear to the Committee that neither in the wording of the Bill nor in the implication of this Clause is there included such a ridiculous suggestion as has been made by the hon. Member or the equally absurd one to which I have referred?

Mr. Levy: If I get an assurance from the Minister on the lines of that asked for by the hon. Member for Doncaster

(Mr. E. Walkden), I shall be perfectly happy, but my interpretation of the Bill is that it is all-embracing and all-inclusive.

Mr. Bevin: That assurance has been given by my right hon. and learned Friend, and I have given it, and I am sorry my power of penetration is not stronger.

Major Petherick: On the question of interpretation, I think there is much that will have to be cleared up between now and the Report stage, but on the question of registration——

The Deputy-Chairman (Mr. Charles Williams): We have not yet come to the hon. and gallant Member's Amendment to this new Clause, and if he discusses it, he may preclude himself from discussing it later.

Major Petherick: I shall be careful not to do that Mr. Williams, in case you are good enough to call my Amendment. I wish to discuss the Clause as its stands. I think the addition of this new Clause will be a considerable improvement to the Bill. In the first place, as regards the question of recognition. Some of us were very alarmed, when we first saw the Bill, with regard to Clause 12, which deals with the right of entry of inspectors, and we raised the question of how they would know whether a lodging house was or was not in fact a lodging house. Therefore, it seemed to me that it was important to have a register in order that inspectors should not claim the right to inspect private houses on the grounds that probably they were lodging houses. The register would obviate that possibility. Secondly, I hope that one of the intentions of the new Clause may be to let out some of the very small type of lodging houses where the people really cannot have the organisation to keep a lot of elaborate records which they will not understand. I hope that is one of the objects of the new Clause.

Mr. Colegate: May I ask a question? Presumably the regulations will provide that where an establishment has been registered and then the person concerned gives up the business, there will be no difficulty in making application to be struck off the register?

Mr. Bevin: I really want the Commission to go into this very carefully, but we


cannot put it in the Bill. The Regulations will provide for entry on and for removal from the register.

Sir A. Maitland: We have an old tradition in the House which I think is a good one, and I should not like to see it departed from. When a Minister gives an undertaking it is usual for someone to express appreciation. As I remember the Debate, the suggestion in the first instance came from the Minister himself, and I thank him for having honoured his undertaking.

Major Petherick: It is extremely kind of my hon. Friend, but actually the suggestion of this registration came from one of my hon. Friends, some of us having discussed the feasibility of it among ourselves.

Question, "That the Clause be read a second time"; put, and agreed to.

Major Petherick: I beg to move, as an Amendment to the proposed new Clause, in line 5, at the end, to insert:
Provided that no such register shall preclude any person from entering the Catering Trade.
I think the Amendment is an important one. The Minister has said that it is not intended to prevent any person entering the catering trade or starting as a lodging-house or hotel keeper. We have heard rather too often that it is not intended to do this or that. The only thing that matters is what the Bill states. Intentions do not matter very much. It is for the courts to interpret the Act as it stands. I think it is possible that some busybody may try to use the register in order to plan the location of the hotel industry. When the right hon. Gentleman leaves his job, his place may be taken by a somewhat Fascistically inclined or possibly even a strong Socialistic Minister, and, if the Commission followed his views, they might use the register to plan the location, for instance, of inns and, if someone wished to start an inn in a certain part of the country, and got a licence, the Commission might say, "We will not allow you to come on the register," or they might use their influence to prevent a landlady starting a lodging house on the ground that there were enough lodging houses in the locality. I believe that is a possible danger. It is no use saying it is not intended. The right hon. Gentle-

man cannot tie down his successors or the Commission 10 years from now. I am satisfied with his own intentions, but I am not satisfied with the amorphous intentions of an unknown successor, and I feel very strongly that the Committee ought to press the Minister to accept the Amendment, which will not do any harm to the structure of the Bill. It merely adds a mandatory provision that they may not do a certain thing.

Mr. Bevin: I was very careful about this Clause, and I put in the words "for the purposes of this Act," and there is really no need for additional words. I think such words as these might lead people to assume that we really have some ulterior motive in inserting the Clause. It is quite clear that the only thing you can register for is for the purposes of this Act. No Minister can make a Regulation restricting applicants for boarding houses, because in no Clause of the Bill is there any power to restrict anyone setting up as a boarding-house keeper—[Interruption.] Certainly not. It would be ultra vires.

Sir A. Maitland: Would not this Amendment, if adopted, rather suggest that this was the only matter that was precluded, and would not that have a restrictive effect? It might be desired to preclude some other matter, but the insertion of these words might prevent that.

The Solicitor-General: I entirely agree with my hon. Friend that it would appear to suggest that that was the only limitation provided. This is a case where I can assure my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Penryn and Falmouth (Major Petherick) that there is no question of relying on intentions or on the future good conduct of other occupants of this bench. We rely on the words to which my right hon. Friend has drawn attention, "to register for the purposes of this Act," and we say that those words absolutely exclude any question of registration in order to preclude any person from entering the industry. We take our stand on the actual words and say that they are sufficient to deal with the situation.

Mr. Levy: Am I to understand that it is obligatory on the part of the Commission, if so requested, to place upon the register any newcomer who may desire to enter


the catering business without any qualifications whatever?

Mr. James Griffiths: What is wrong with that?

Mr. Levy: I am asking the question, and I hope the right hon. Gentleman will give me an answer.

Mr. Griffiths: I asked what was wrong with it because the hon. Member's tone seemed to suggest that there was something very wrong with it.

Mr. Levy: If I happen to be rather dull and something is not quite clear to me, it is part of our procedure to ask the right hon. Gentleman to explain it, so that I may be quite clear what I am asked to vote upon if a Division is taken. I understand that anyone who so desires is free to enter the trade. That means that he would have to be put upon the register and that it is obligatory upon the Commission to accept an application from a newcomer to be placed upon the register.

Mr. Bevin: The register has nothing to do with latecomers or newcomers. All it has to do with is to indicate where the inspector shall inspect and, when a person is put on the register, whether a newcomer or an old inhabitant, the inspector is directed for the purpose of the Act to the people who are on the register. That is all it means. It has nothing to do with who shall come into the business and who shall not.

Mr. E. Walkden: I want to understand the suggestion of the hon. Member who keeps arguing with the Minister on something which I believe is contrary to his own point of view. Does he wish us to accept the idea that anyone shall be refused the right to set up in business in any shape or form except in war-time? In war-time it is impossible to allow people to set up in business because of the Regulations, but does he wish to interpolate a provision that persons shall be refused the right because there are enough caterers in the area already?

Major Petherick: I was impressed with what the Solicitor-General said that we need not rely on intentions but that we can rely on what the Bill says, but I am not absolutely happy about it. There might be a slump in the lodging-house industry at some future date, and the Com-

mission might want to set up a wages board, which would make it very difficult for landladies and landlords to carry on without putting a lot of people out of employment. It is conceivable that they might say to themselves, "We will have a register, and in order to carry out our purpose we will make it watertight and will allow only those people whom we think fit to add their names to the register and to enter the trade." My hon. and learned Friend shakes his head, but it is worth examining again, and on the understanding that it will not be lost sight of, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the Amendment.

Amendment to the proposed new Clause, by leave, withdrawn.

Clause added to the Bill.

NEW CLAUSE.—(Application to local authorities.)

This Act shall apply to persons employed by the local authorities only in so far as such persons are engaged wholly or mainly in the preparation and serving of food or drink—(Sir J. Lamb.)

Brought up, and read the First time.

Sir Joseph Lamb: I beg to move, "That the Clause be read a Second time."
The Minister has had a good deal of difficulty in convincing the Committee why certain Amendments should not be accepted, but I hope that I shall have little difficulty in convincing him that this new Clause is something that he could and should accept. Legislation should be quite clear, and people should understand to whom it applies. The proposed new Clause does this and makes clear to what persons in the employ of local authorities this Bill should apply. Local authorities are not against the Bill; they want to help it and to have it as good as possible. They are not clear to what people in their employ the Bill really applies. Clause 1, Sub-section (2), is so wide that it might include many who are not wholly or mainly employed in the preparation and serving of food. I take it that the kitchen staffs of hospitals and nurses' hostels are included. So, too, are the cooks and those engaged in preparing food in the kitchens attached to schools. The teachers, however, do a good deal of the serving, but I hope they will not be included. There are also porters and others employed by these institutions who might


be included, and it should be made clear that they are not. In hospitals there is what is called a housekeeping sister, who has control of the kitchens and the serving of food. Therefore she might be included. She is also included in the Rushcliffe Report. That is an example of the ambiguity as to the persons who come within the Bill.

Sir A. Maitland: I had an Amendment down earlier covering the same point. It was put down at the request of the Association of Municipal Corporations, and as we rely so much on the municipal authorities for the administration of legislation, it will be agreed that we ought to have some regard to representations on matters which closely affect them. Clause 1 of this Bill says it shall apply to all persons employed "in any undertaking." If we take the example of a hospital, the main duty of a nurse is to attend the patients. She has nothing to do with the cooking of food, but on occasion she may serve it. Should she, therefore, be included in this Bill? This new Clause will not affect the purpose of the Bill, but it will make clear the persons to whom it applies.

Sir H. Williams: I got into a certain amount of trouble on Thursday when we were discussing an Amendment to Clause 6 which had some relation to this proposal. An hon. Member behind me was angry because he thought I had misrepresented the situation.

Sir J. Lamb: I was speaking for the County Councils' Association with the full knowledge that we were supported by all the other associations.

Sir H. Williams: That was my impression. The issue in this new Clause is perfectly clear. On the other hand, although I have been asked by the London County Council to support it, I am wondering whether it should be supported, because there is no reason why a local authority should be in a privileged position in legislation like this. Let us take the case of any large shop in the West End that has a restaurant for the convenience of its customers, as, for example, the Army and Navy Stores, which is the nearest to us. Across the river is the London County Council. Across the road is the luncheon club which is or used to be run by the Ministry of Health. Are we going to treat these three cases differ-

ently? Under Clause 16 the Crown, which is not His Majesty but that mysterious entity represented by the people who sit on the Front Government Bench, is always claiming privilege. Under Clause 16 we have exempted the Crown except so far as canteens in Royal Ordnance factories are concerned. We are being asked by this new Clause to put local authorities in a position of privilege. I am not clear whether the people in the luncheon club at the Ministry of Health come under the Bill. The people at the Army and Navy Stores do come under it. What conceivable reason is there why somebody on the clerical staff of the Army and Navy Stores should come under the Bill and why somebody who happens to be the secretary of the luncheon club of the Ministry of Health should be exempt because he is a servant of the Crown and not an industrial worker, and why County Hall across the river should be exempted by this Clause? There is no coherence about the Bill.
We thus have three classes of persons. There are the employees of the Crown; there are employees of places like the Army and Navy Stores, which used to be called a co-operative society but they have now abandoned that title; there are co-operative societies which would come under this Bill. The hon. Member behind me who is very chatty has supported Clause 16, which suggests that certain people should be out of the Bill. In addition to those two classes there are people like the secretary of the luncheon club of the Ministry of Health. Now this proposed Clause wants to exclude the London County Council. I do not really mind who is in the Bill and who is out, for it is such a bad Bill that it does not matter. There ought, however, to be some principle. I can find no principle governing this matter in the Bill. It is merely submission to the pressure of Fascist doctrine, which has now its chief support from behind me. (Interruption). The hon. Member thinks Fascism is a term of abuse applied to Germans.

The Deputy-Chairman: The hon. Member is going very wide on what is really a narrow point. Perhaps he had better refer less to hon. Members behind him.

Sir H. Williams: I apologise. The question at issue is whether there is any fundamental reason why employees of local authorities, who are large traders in these


days, should be outside this Bill any more than the employees of private persons. That is the fundamental test, and although I have been asked by the London County Council, of which I am an alderman, to support the new Clause, I find that I cannot do it. There is not the slightest reason why municipalities should be put in a privileged position. If we pass Acts of Parliament which impose social duties in connection with employment, conditions and wages there is no reason why local authorities should be exempt from the overriding and all-powerful arm of the Minister of Labour.

Sir John Mellor: British Restaurants are managed by the local authorities, and I hope that the Solicitor-General will give an assurance that the staffs employed in them will not be in a privileged position as compared with staffs in any other catering establishment.

Sir H. Webbe: I hope that we shall not be alarmed by the implications of what my hon. Friend has just said. We have not yet had any indication from the Minister that it is his intention to accept this new Clause. Like others who are concerned with local authorities, I have been asked to support it. I admit that the logic of the arguments leads me to want to do so. This is just another example of the muddle into which we have got because of the rather hasty character of this legislation. There are any number of arguments which can be put forward on behalf of the local authorities, but those arguments apply equally to the big private enterprise establishments. Therefore, I am afraid that I cannot support this new Clause, and I hope very much that the Minister will reject it. There is no doubt that local authorities will experience great difficulties with this Bill. Questions will arise in connection with their clerical staff which will puzzle them and lead to a great deal of trouble in administration, but they, like private enterprise, have to suffer from the fact that the bull has got into the china shop and that some china is bound to be broken.

Mr. Levy: Either this Bill is a good Bill or a bad Bill. If it is supposed to be a good Bill, it should apply to all who should come within its ambit. If it is a bad Bill, let us not make it worse by showing discrimination. The Bill is supposed to be all-embracing so far as the

catering trade is concerned, and therefore if local authorities or the Crown find it necessary to cater for employees, it seems nonsensical that their catering departments should be excluded. We find that hotels are divided into two classes, the residential and the catering. All hotels are not necessarily residential. A catering department exists for the convenience of those who may wish to partake of refreshments or food. I cannot support any Clause which is going to discriminate among various categories of catering employees just because they happen to be in various institutions under local autthorities vis-à-vis these other large establishments. My hon. Friend the Member for South Croydon (Sir H. Williams) mentioned the Army and Navy Stores. May I mention Harrods or some other big establishment? Either they are to be excluded or included. I say that if they come within the category this bad Catering Bill should be made worse by the inclusion of all.

Mr. Evelyn Walkden: I think the hon. Member who moved this Clause has been very badly briefed by the Municipal Corporations' Association or the County Councils' Association in regard to the arguments he has put forward. If they have no better case than the one he has submitted, he had better tell them to hold a few more meetings long after this Bill has become law.

Sir J. Lamb: I was moving a new Clause and not asking for advice as to what I should do in any other case.

Mr. Walkden: And I am offering an opinion on what was said. I think I am entitled to offer an opinion on arguments as to why we should accept the Clause, accepting the fact that the County Councils' Association are the promoters of the Clause and my hon. Friend is the Mover.

The Deputy-Chairman: It is no concern of the Committee who is promoting the Clause. What concerns us is who moves the Clause.

Mr. Walkden: I listened to my hon. Friend the Member for Faversham (Sir A. Maitland), who told us of the interest and appreciation we ought to display in the views of the Municipal Corporations' Association. I am accepting his advice, but I accept the correction from you, Mr. Williams, in regard to the point as to whom else we should appreciate.


Whether county councils, municipal councils or parish councils are affected by the Bill, what does it matter? If town clerks cannot decide when this Bill becomes law which members of their staff are affected by the Bill then it is time we got new town clerks.

Mr. Levy: It is within the discretion of the Commission and not of the town clerks.

Mr. Walkden: They understand beforehand that this is part of the delaying action, and I am sorry that these associations are lending themselves to it. It is most unfortunate, and I hope we shall reject this Clause.

The Solicitor-General: I have given full consideration to this new Clause, and so has my right hon. Friend the Minister, because my hon. Friend was good enough to draw attention to it at an early stage in the proceedings, but the difficulty which we are in is that it alters fundamentally the principle on which the scope of the Bill is based. If the hon. Member for Stone (Sir J. Lamb) will look once again at Sub-section (2) of Clause 1, he will see that the scope is based on the activities of the undertaking or part of the undertaking. They decide the scope issue. The new Clause suggests that in the case of a local authority's catering a different principle should apply, and that the test of the activities of the person should be the material consideration. I think I am putting in other words, relating it to the wording of the Bill, the argument which was put forward by my hon. Friend the Member for South Croydon (Sir H. Williams). I ask my hon. Friend to appreciate that there is a fundamental difficulty. We cannot alter the fundamental provisions of the Bill and place local authorities in a different position. That is the difficulty on the question of accepting the new Clause.
Having put that point with one hand, let me try to remove some of my hon. Friend's fears with the other. He put forward the case of a teacher engaged for a short time in serving meals. In that case his fear is unfounded. Applying the test which I have just suggested, the test of undertakings and activities, that teacher is employed in the scholastic part of the local authority's undertaking and would not be within the scope of the Bill because

he or she assisted in serving school meals. When we come to the nursing question I ask my hon. Friend to remember the governing principle that local authorities are in exactly the same position, and also to remember that the Minister has said that he is going to have no duplication in the matter. I think that sets at rest the other point. The point of them all being in the same position meets the point of my hon. Friend the Member for Tamworth (Sir J. Mellor). That is the position we have tried to keep. When we get to the question of the ancillary workers, I think the point made by my hon. Friend the Member for South Croydon becomes even stronger, that it would be obviously unfair and illegal to exclude ancillary workers in local authority catering establishments while including such workers who are employed otherwise in the local authority. It is quite a serious problem. The normal number likely to be affected in the case of the London County Council is something like 8,000 to 10,000. I am quite certain, having given the best consideration to this position, that in the interests of general fairness and logical legislation we must place local authorities not in any worse position but in the same position as other catering establishments.

Sir W. Smithers: Before you came into the Chair, Mr. Williams, we had a discussion on Sub-section (2) of Clause 17, in which the question of ancillary workers was raised. There we were told that certain persons like ostlers, chauffeurs and gardeners who work for catering establishments would come within the ambit of the Bill. Now the Solicitor-General tells us that a teacher who is engaged chiefly in teaching but who helps with the feeding of the school children does not come within the ambit of the Bill. What does he mean? We are here to try to protect the public. Will the Solicitor-General give us some better definition of ancillary help? A lot of people ask me, "Do I or do I not"——

The Deputy-Chairman: The hon. Member was perfectly in Order up to the point when he began asking for a definition of "ancillary," but that point has passed.

Sir W. Smithers: With great respect, I was speaking about local authorities. The Solicitor-General referred to the case of a teacher and said a teacher does not come within the ambit of the Bill. Will


he therefore continue his definition and say who does and who does not come within the Bill, because people want to know?

Sir J. Lamb: I should like to thank the Solicitor-General for his reply, but I wish to clear up a point which has been raised by the other side. The authorities for whom I am speaking—and I believe I am speaking for a larger number than are represented by the County Councils' Association—do not in any way wish to oppose the Bill. They are prepared to come under the Bill, but they ask that it should be made clear as to who it is among those in their service to whom the Bill does apply. I see from the attitude that hon. Members have taken that because they have not been successful in obtaining clarity for others they are not prepared to give it to the County Councils' Association or any other association. In that case I think the best thing I can do is to ask leave to withdraw the new Clause.

Motion and Clause, by leave, withdrawn.

NEW CLAUSE—(Restriction on disclosure of information.)

(1) No information relating to any undertaking, premises or place, being information which has been obtained by, or on behalf of, any person for the purposes of his functions under this Act, shall, without the previous consent in writing of the person carrying on such undertaking or owning such premises or place, be published or disclosed otherwise than in connection with the execution or for the purposes of this Act or any order or regulation having effect by virtue of this Act.

(2) Nothing in the preceding Sub-section shall apply to any disclosure of any information made for the purposes of any legal proceedings pursuant to this Act (including any public inquiry under Section three, Section four or Section seven of this Act) or of any criminal proceedings which may be taken whether pursuant to this Act or otherwise, or for the purposes of any report of any such proceedings as aforesaid.

(3) If any person publishes or discloses any information in contravention of this Section, he shall be liable on summary conviction to imprisonment for a term not exceeding three months or to a fine not exceeding fifty pounds or to both such imprisonment and such fine or, on conviction on indictment, to imprisonment for a term not exceeding two years or to a fine not exceeding one hundred pounds or to both such imprisonment and such fine.—[Sir R. Clarry.]

Brought up, and read the First time.

Sir Reginald Clarry: I beg to move, "That the Clause be read a Second time."
In simple language the Clause means that there shall be no transmission of trade secrets or anything of that sort from one establishment to another. I am not in a position to talk about the particular kinds of trade secrets in this industry, except that they may be recipes, or methods of cooking, purchasing or organisation of one sort or another. I see no reason why this provision should not be inserted, as it would improve the Bill—such as it is.

The Solicitor-General: I want the Committee to consider whether the proposed new Clause, having regard to its general effect, is necessary. The last thing we would desire is to create a new criminal offence, if that is unnecessary. As I see the position, any inspector or person in that class would be completely covered by Section 2 of the Official Secrets Act.

Sir H. Williams: These persons are not in the service of the Crown in the ordinary sense. I thought that the Official Secrets Act related to only those in the service of the Crown. I shall be very much obliged if the Minister will give us the reference.

The Solicitor-General: I welcome the interruption. I am very anxious to help the Committee on this point. The words which I have in mind are:
having in his possession information which he has obtained, owing to his position as a person who holds or has held office under His Majesty.
I take the view—everyone I have consulted has also taken the view—that inspectors would undoubtedly be in that position. They come under Section 2 of the Official Secrets Act, and it would be an offence for them to give information to any person, other than a person to whom they were authorised to communicate the information or a person to whom, in the interests of the State, they ought to communicate it.

Sir H. Williams: The Commission will be created, in principle, by Parliament and appointed by the Minister. It is suggested that officials of the Commission then come under the Official Secrets Act. Let us take an analogy. The Governors of the British Broadcasting Corporation are a body created by Parliament. Do I understand that every official of the B.B.C. comes under the Official Secrets Act? If not, why not?

The Solicitor-General: My hon. Friend will be the first to appreciate that I cannot give off-hand an opinion on a matter like that without having the Charter of the Corporation in front of me. I am very anxious that the Committee should receive the best information on any question of law which I can give to them, but I must ask my hon. Friend not to press me on the question of the B.B.C. By all means let him press me with regard to this Commission. I take the view that inspectors and officers appointed under Clause 12 are in the position that I have said, that is, of those who have obtained their information through a position of holding office under His Majesty. To be quite frank, the position of the actual Commissioners themselves is more doubtful.
There would be an argument, and I cannot officially decide that argument, as to the position of the Commissioners or of the members of the wages boards. The answer to that is, whichever side of the line it may fall, to look at what the Commissioners or the wages boards are concerned with. They are concerned with general questions. The Commissioners have, first of all, to decide whether the industrial machinery of employers and employed is sufficient. Then they have to consider, if it is not sufficient, whether they will make a wages board recommendation. So far as I can see, there is no need for the Commissioners to obtain detailed private information. The wages board have to make recommendations to the Minister as to general rates of wages that will obtain. If one concedes that there is an argument that they are servants of the Crown, I do not see the practical fear which inspires my hon. Friend on this point. The new Clause appears mainly directed against the misuse of information by the officers who will be in a position of asking for information and of conducting prosecutions. I take the view that they are covered by the Official Secrets Act. With regard to the Commissioners and members of the wages boards, even if they are not covered, I do not think they can be in a position to misuse their powers.

Sir H. Williams: We have had a most illuminating speech from the Solicitor-General. When he was halfway across the river he realised that he was in difficulties. The whole of the brief which he

had prepared for himself was based on Clause 12, under which it is clear that the officers appointed by the Minister to perform certain functions of civil servants come under the Official Secrets Act. When you turn to the First and Second Schedules, and when you also look at the earlier Clauses and the powers to obtain information, it is clear that both the Commission and the wages board can obtain private information about all sorts of firms, corporations and institutions, and that there is no prohibition. They are not persons in the service of the Crown, and they do not come under the Official Secrets Act. The Solicitor-General admitted that there is some doubt about the position of the Commission. Having regard to the speech of the Solicitor-General, I suggest that the Mover of the proposed new Clause should ask leave to withdraw it on the understanding that the rather difficult legal and constitutional position shall be looked into by the Law Officers of the Crown before we reach the Report stage. It is manifest that there is a real element of doubt about the position of members and officers of the Commission and members and officers of wages boards.

Major Petherick: There are two possible leakages of information with regard to the proposed new Clause. The first is the inspectors under the Crown. I am not at all satisfied with the Solicitor-General's explanation. It is true that inspectors, being Government employees, are obviously bound by the Official Secrets Act, but that only applies to the King's secrets. Suppose an inspector under the Bill parts with a recipe for an extremely good dish which he has happened to learn from the landlord of an hotel. What is the position in that case? As regards members of the Commission and of wages boards, all kinds of information might very well be discovered, relating, say, to the amount of capital involved, the amount already paid in wages or technical questions of cold storage, efficiency and development of trade. It is not so far-fetched as it may have seemed. It is clear when we are talking about wages boards that they are to be persons connected with the trade. They will be placed in a responsible position, and it seems possible that one, representing an employer, might obtain the secrets of another employer and inadvertently pass them on. There seems no good reason why the Clause should not be accepted. The fact that it increases the


size of the Bill is not a very good reason for rejecting it.

Mr. Bevin: The hon. and gallant Member who has just spoken raised the question of inspectors covered by the Official Secrets Act, and the whole of the argument in the last few minutes has been concerned with what an inspector might discover in the course of his inspection. My difficulty is when we get to the Commission. I have given an undertaking that there shall be a report to the House. I do not want a conflict between the Official Secrets Act and my undertaking as to a report to the House of Commons of the grounds on which the Commission arrived at their conclusion. The proposal that the Commission should be brought within the Official Secrets Act will hamstring the House of Commons entirely in regard to that report. I am sure, while we have no desire to give any secrets away—in fact, I understand that this is the one trade in which there are no secrets, and that is why we all look so well—from my knowledge of wages boards for many years, that if there is one institution in the world whose discussions have been kept private it is this kind of board and Commission. I know of no place in which there is greater respect for matters conveyed to them than there is on joint bodies like the proposed Commission and wages boards. You never see the information leak out to the Press or anywhere else. If the Commission are to discharge the duty to the House of Commons of presentation of their annual report, I suggest, and this is what I am troubled about, that they should not be hamstrung any further.

Sir H. Williams: I was quite satisfied when the Solicitor-General spoke that the Government were in a mess, but I am convinced beyond all possibility of doubt after hearing the Minister. What has he told us? That, "You must do this, otherwise the Commission will be prevented from reporting to Parliament." Really, that is not good enough. After all, this Commission can have officers, can have secretaries, such officers as the Minister thinks fit. The Official Secrets Act applies to the employees of the Crown, but it does not bind Ministers. Ministers, in some cases without specific sanction from His Majesty, in some cases requiring his specific sanction in certain Cabinet matters, can always speak freely. The

Minister is now trying to suggest that if my hon. Friend's new Clause is carried, the Commission will not be able to report to Parliament. He must be in an awful mess if he has to use that argument, which has no intellectual validity whatever.
His Majesty's advisers are in a mess at this moment, and I hope they will accept the suggestion I made earlier. I believe the hon. Member will withdraw his Clause provided they will give an undertaking that they will look into this subject between now and the Report stage, because it is obvious that the Government do not know where they are. It is no use fumbling with it and saying that no wages Commission has ever blown the gaff. That does not impress me in the least. We are now passing an Act of Parliament, not discussing the right hon. Gentleman's pre-war colleagues, who, I agree, are most honourable and proper. We are laying down that people employed by the Commission and the wages board who receive confidential information must not themselves disclose it. What the Commission should do in presenting an annual report to Parliament is a different matter. We must not be fobbed off by the suggestion that if we pass this Clause we shall never have a report to Parliament. That is nonsense, and the right hon. Gentleman would not have said it unless he was in difficulties. That the Minister is using an argument of no intellectual validity shows he is in a mess, and I hope he will say that he will look into this between now and the Report stage.

Mr. Gallacher: I wish to ask the hon. and learned Gentleman, in view of this fear of the caterer that another caterer may know his secrets, whether it does not strike him as remarkable as showing how little trust the robber capitalists have in one another? Would it not be better to intern the whole lot of them for the duration of the war?

Sir R. Clarry: It is clear that this Clause has disclosed a very substantial loophole in the Bill. We understand that inspectors come within the Official Secrets Act but that there are other classes who may get in possession of trade secrets, who might not or do not come under the Official Secrets Act. On the understanding that the matter will be carefully examined between now and the Report stage, I beg, to ask leave to withdraw the new Clause.

Motion and Clause, by leave, withdrawn.

NEW CLAUSE.—(Safeguard for general public interest.)

The Commission is exercising their powers under this Act and every wages board in making any recommendations and framing and submitting any wages regulation proposals under this Act shall have due regard to the general public interest and to the importance of ensuring that the persons for whom accommodation or refreshment is provided by the catering industry (including visitors from overseas) are adequately served.—[Mr. Craik Henderson.]

Brought up, and read the First time.

Mr. Craik Henderson: I beg to move, "That the Clause be read a Second time."
I suggest that this really is an important Clause. So far we have been dealing with various Clauses regulating wages and so on, but, as the Minister said, "We cannot live by the Beveridge Report alone." Equally, we cannot live, or the catering industry cannot prosper, merely by the appointment of Committees. The catering trade must be in a position to attract new business after the war, and it is going to be a very serious handicap both for the catering industry and, what is more important in my view, for the general public, if these various Commissions, wages boards and sub-committees are to have the power of putting forward recommendations which might have the effect of killing the industry itself which lays the golden egg, and also might have the effect of introducing provisions which might be very detrimental to the general public. To take just one example, suppose a recommendation were put forward that no hot meals were to be supplied after eight o'clock and the Minister were to adopt it. It might seem, both to employers and employees equally, that it was quite a useful provision, but the effect would be very bad on the general public and bad in its effect of driving tourists away from this country. One would like to have some assurance that in the framing of these regulations, and in the Minister giving effect to them, the interests of the general public will be kept well in view.

The Joint Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Labour (Mr. McCorquodale): My hon. Friend, in moving this proposed new Clause, raised a point which

I think has the general sympathy of all of us. No one would wish-that anything done under this Bill should in any way handicap the general public interest or the interest of the trade, and indeed I cannot imagine a wages board, which would be composed of experienced people in the trade, endeavouring to handicap the source of their own livelihood. The hon. Member mentioned what I thought was a rather odd case. He suggested that the wages board might recommend that no hot meal should be served after eight o'clock and that the Minister might adopt it. The Minister has no power to adopt any such suggestion, or to make such a regulation. He would have to come to Parliament and move a new Bill to be able to do so. I do not think the hon. Member need be worried by points of the kind he raised. The Clause as drafted simply requires that due regard is to be had to the matters mentioned; it would have no legal effect and, therefore, can have no effective place in the legislation. I think we must assume that the Minister, this impartial Commission, and the wages board, made up of experienced people in that section of the industry with which they deal, will all recognise the responsibilities entrusted to them by Parliament in this Bill, and act accordingly in the public interest. I hope the hon. Member will not press this Clause, as we do not want anything in the Bill which clearly would have no effect at all.

Sir Alfred Beit: I do not quite follow the Joint Parliamentary Secretary in his statement that the Minister of Labour could not make any Order to the effect of the example given by the Mover of this proposed new Clause. Surely if the wages board were to lay down certain restrictions on the hours of labour in this industry, the effect might be that meals could not be sold at certain times. I find myself in general principle somewhat in sympathy with the objects of this new Clause, because, although I have not visited Australia, I believe that without any such provision as we are now envisaging, it is difficult to get a meal after six p.m. With legislation of this kind something of that might arise, which I think would be a setback to Western civilisation. But I do not think it is desirable to incorporate these matters in this Clause. It seems to me that Clause 6, with its safeguards for the improvement and efficiency of the industry,


is sufficient. No one who has any regard for the efficiency and improvement of the industry could possibly say that to take such a step as has been instanced would be furthering the efficiency or improvement of the industry. I do not think this new Clause is needed, though I sympathise with its object.

Sir Granville Gibson: I had intended raising the point which has just been asked. The Joint Parliamentary Secretary has said that the Minister has no power to stipulate the hours when meals can be served. But the Commission has power, I suppose, to recommend that hours should be limited, and the Minister would have the power to put them into effect.

Mr. McCorquodale: The Commission would have no power at all in the matter, and the wages boards have not the power to recommend hours. The wages boards have power to make proposals for fixing the remuneration to be paid generally or for any particular work, for fixing intervals for meals or rests, or requiring any workers to be allowed holidays, and it is on these matters that Orders may be made by my right hon. Friend. He therefore could not make an Order that no meals should be served after 8 p.m.

Sir G. Gibson: Apparently hours may be stipulated or recommendation made by the Commission as to hours.

Mr. McCorquodale: No, only the hours of rest, not hours of work. They can made recommendations
for fixing the intervals for meals or rest to be allowed to all or any such worker….
That is in the Bill, Clause 7 (1). That is the only power the wages board has at all to recommend hours.

Sir G. Gibson: Is there any danger that an experience I had in New Zealand might happen here, whereby breakfast was served from eight to nine, and at 9.15 you could not get a meal?

Mr. McCorquodale: Not under this Bill.

Mr. Levy: The Minister would surely agree that if you are going to regulate hours, and the Commission, as I understand it, under this Bill have the right to recommend regulations for intervals of rest, they can say that the interval for

rest shall start, shall we say, at 8.30 p.m., which means that after eight o'clock the interval starts, and no meals can be served because it would interfere with the interval. After all, it seems quite obvious that in regulations that the Commission desire to make which they think are for the benefit of the workers, whether it is so or not, they may think it is desirable that restaurants shall close, shall we say, at 10 p.m. What is to prevent them from making a regulation to do that? They can argue that the interval for rest shall start at 2 p.m., which would automatically mean no lunches after two. What provision is there here to prevent anything of that kind taking place? It may sound a little absurd as I am saying it—[Interruption]—but a number of these absurdities unfortunately, owing to these regulations, are translated into facts, because so many of these Regulations to-day which are translated into actual facts become absurd in actual working, and there is a good deal of anxiety in the country.

Miss Ward: Could the hon. Member give an illustration of that absurdity?

Mr. Levy: With pleasure. To-day manufacturers who have in their possession quite a large amount of brilliantine are prohibited under a Regulation from supplying it and it is therefore absurd to think that manufacturers with brilliantine required by the community are committing a penal offence if they distribute it.

Captain Studholme: The hon. Lady asked for an example of the absurdity in practice. The last time I was in New Zealand, a country with which I have many family connections and for which I have a great affection, I arrived, after a very tiresome, rough crossing, at the hotel at about 7 o'clock in the evening. I asked for a meal, and I was told, "We are very sorry, but we are not allowed to serve a meal at this hour." I consider this a very good example. The whole thing is quite barbarous.

Sir W. Smithers: In considering the hours of rest, will any provision be made to see that they are fixed daily, or will they be spread out over three months or six months? [An HON. MEMBER: "Oh!"] The hon. Member says "Oh!" but it is very important because


seaside and holiday places have rash seasons, and people at such places would be prepared to work longer hours at rush times if they could get a proper rest at other times.

Mr. McCorquodale: On this Clause we have had an interesting Debate, ranging from New Zealand to brilliantine; but we are endeavouring to consider what is actually in the Clause, and neither New Zealand nor brilliantine is included. My hon. Friend assumes that a wages board, composed of employers and employed persons in that section of the industry, are deliberately going to make recommendations on rest times and on wages which will hamstring their own trade. I cannot believe that that is likely. The object of setting up a wages board which is representative of the trade is to prevent that sort of thing. We must leave it to the good sense of the board to safeguard their own trading interests.

Sir William Davison: It seems to me that this matter is left very much in the air. The Minister cannot say that a thing is likely or is not likely to take place. We know what has happened in certain of the Dominions and other places. The board might possibly make up its mind that it was in the interests of the employees that they should have an interval for rest from, say, 7.30 to 8.30, but that might not be to the public convenience. I think the wording of the Clause might be improved, but there should be some direction to the board that in making an order regard should be had to the interests of the general public. I see no legal objection to that. We cannot accept the idea that people concerned in the trade will not do anything absurd. We are a legislative assembly, and we have to provide in advance, by Act of Parliament, and not by what a Minister considers likely, that such things shall not happen. I hope a direction will be given that any interval of rest which is fixed shall have regard to the convenience of the general public.

Mr. Colegate: I have great sympathy with this proposed- Clause, although I agree that the wording may not be quite suitable for its purpose. We should be quite clear about what we are doing, and how far we accept the sort of argument which is put forward against the Clause.

My hon. Friend the Parliamentary Secretary said that we could trust to a wages board not to do anything to hamstring the industry. That is not the point. We are concerned with the consumer. We all know that employers and employed may easily get together to soak the consumer. One of the functions of this House, now and for many years to come, will be to give adequate protection to the consumer against what we might call conspiracies between the employer and the employed. That applies particularly to the catering industry. [Interruption.] Would the hon. Member mind making his own speech when I am not talking? Particularly does this apply to the catering industry, on which all members of the public depend for their comfort and convenience when they go about the country. We may be told that something is not likely to happen, or that commonsense or the Minister is going to prevent it. Over and over again we have been told that we must leave things to somebody else's commonsense. But I really think that the Minister, from whom we had very little concession, should try before the Report stage to get some form of words which will meet this point, which I am sure appeals to a large section of the House.

Major Petherick: I do not think there is anything particularly objectionable even in the form of words used in the Clause. The whole emphasis of the Bill is on the protection of the persons engaged in the trade. There is not one word which makes it plain that the whole of the trade, employers and employed, depend on whether the people of the country are willing to consume the goods they supply. It seems to me that a caveat should be inserted to tell the wages board that they must, in any recommendations they make, consider the consumer. It is no good either of them making such recommendations as are going to drive the consumers away from the restaurants, the hotels, the cafes, the sweet shops and so on.

Mr. MacLaren: Where will they go?

Major Petherick: If I go to an hotel and try to get a meal, and cannot get one, I go home. If I do not get good food, I do not go to that place again. The case of New Zealand has been, quite properly, raised. It is an apposite instance to


bring up. The Parliamentary Secretary and other members of the Government during the whole Committee stage have constantly suggested that everything will be all right because the Commission is going to consist of Tritons, and the wages board of Angel Gabriels. But nobody knows that that will be so. Can we guarantee that that will be so in 1953? Of course we cannot. We must go back to what the Bill in fact states. If the Bill in no way draws the attention of the Commission and the wages boards to the fact that their trade relies entirely for its success or failure upon the consumers, it may be that one or other of those bodies will make recommendations which will drive prospective consumers away from the industry. It does no harm to accept these six very modest lines in the new Clause. It may do a lot of good in drawing the attention of these people to the fact that they rely on the general public.

Mr. Levy: My hon. Friend the Parliamentary Secretary endeavoured to make a couple of points with regard to New Zealand and brilliantine which were quite irrelevant to the point I asked him to explain. I do not think that——

The Deputy-Chairman: I was not in the Chair then, but now that the hon. Gentleman has called my attention to the fact, I think he had better leave it alone.

Mr. Levy: I had better not continue on that subject; but my hon. Friend instead of replying to the proper points which I made, if I may say so, with all deference and due humility, gave us a rigmarole which had nothing to do with them. I asked him to explain if it were not possible in the form of a regulation to limit the service of meals after 9 o'clock. Either it is possible for the Commissioners under regulations, or it is not. If it is possible, something should be put into the Bill to prevent that sort of thing happening, so as to meet the convenience of people who are travelling about the country, and for whom it is necessary that meals should be obtainable over good and reasonable hours.

Miss Ward: Will you allow me to say how sorry I am that the hon. Member for Elland (Mr. Levy) has not been able to get his brilliantine? Obviously, it is a very sore point. I do not want to pursue that subject. I have listened to the supporters of this Clause with very great in-

terest. None of them realises that at this moment the railway companies, without this Bill, have ceased to serve meals. [Interruption.] My hon. Friend obviously has not travelled lately on the London and North Eastern Railway.

Sir G. Gibson: I travelled from Leeds to London last night on the London and North Eastern Railway, and I had dinner on the train.

The Deputy-Chairman: Both hon. Members are completely out of Order.

Miss Ward: At present under the law of the land, as I understand it, railway hotels and restaurants can all say at what time they will open and close their establishments. [HON. MEMBERS: "No,"] Members all say "No," but I have a fairly wide experience of restaurants. I have no desire to pursue this very complicated question, but I want to say, in general opposition to the proposed Clause, that, as far as I understand it, the wages board machinery in the past has worked very effectively, with very great success, and I very much regret that my hon. Friends here should have taken up so much time on this matter.

Captain P. Macdonald: This is a very important Clause. I think it would be a very bad thing if this Bill were to go on the Statute Book without some reference to the obligation which this industry is under to the general public. Reference has been made to different countries, and the conditions prevailing in them with regard to catering for the general public. I will deal with one example, not in our own Empire, but nearer home where trade union regulations were imposed and completely spoilt catering for the general public in recent years. I remember arriving by car somewhere in Czechoslovakia, a Socialist State, at 7.30 in the evening and being told that because of trade union regulations and so forth imposed upon hotel keepers no meals could be served after that hour. If one had to go on a train journey of a considerable length, the same reasons were given for not providing a meal. There is no reason why this Bill, if improperly interpreted or misinterpreted, or even interpreted in its proper form, could not impose upon the industry regulations that would make it impossible for it to cater for the general public. There is a very great danger of this happening unless the trade boards


have some clause or regulation such as this to insist that the comfort of the general public must be considered, otherwise we are handing over to this body under this Bill powers from which the general public will dissent very much indeed if they find that it is going to hamper their convenience and comfort in this way. We have only to impose one regulation and say that in small hotels or small lodging houses there must be one job for one man. To impose such an obligation upon a small establishment might mean that immediately they might have to close down because they could not afford to run two shifts. Is the general public to be left in this position without any obligation being upon the Government to see that the convenience of the public is catered for?
I do not think that the illustration of the hon. Lady the Member for Wallsend (Miss Ward) has relevance at all. The railway companies to-day are hamstrung by war-time regulations. It is not their fault that they cannot serve meals. They are very anxious to serve them, but they are not allowed in many cases because the Minister of War Transport does not allow them a restaurant car. To say that it is their fault that meals are not served in all cases to-day is to quote a very bad example indeed. I urge the Minister, before rejecting this Clause, to reassure the general public that in passing this Bill giving so much power to the Minister, the Government are not doing this without safeguarding in some way the obligations that they have to the general public. If the words of the proposed Clause are not convenient, I am convinced that some suitable words could be found to ensure that the convenience of the general public is safeguarded.

Sir H. Webbe: I am sure that no one doubts the intentions either of the Minister or his officers or indeed of those he is to appoint to the wages board, but we have had a little too much of intentions. I submit to the Minister that without even loss of faith—and I realise that he wants the Bill, the whole Bill, and nothing but the Bill—he could afford to accept either this Clause or at least the principle. I will quote two sentences from this interesting product of the party truce. The Minister, in introducing this Bill, said:

Let me say, too, that I do not regard this catering service as purely commercial. A large part of it must inevitably be a social service as well."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 9th February, 1943; col. 1200, Vol. 386.]
That is what those who have spoken in support of the Amendment have been trying to say. I ask the Minister, by accepting the Clause or by agreeing to put something definite into the Bill, to restore the expression of opinion he gave on Second Reading on this matter and with which I am certain that the whole House was heartily in agreement.

Mr. Bevin: I regret that so much time has been taken up on this Clause, because it might be assumed that there was no joint machinery existing in this country at all. We have the longest history of any country in the world of joint relationship, and from the days of the trade boards until now, I defy any hon. Members to point to me one industry that was not improved in efficiency as a result of coming under joint machinery of this character. There is all this talk about ruining and wrecking the industry. Read your Debates of 1909. Everything has been falsified. When the two parties have come together under a board they have contributed to the efficiency of the industry and have never done a single thing that can be shown to be against the public interest at all. The public interest and the interest of those employed in the industry are synonymous terms, but that does not mean that women have to work until 12 o'clock at night and have to get breakfast ready in the morning. I deliberately refrained from putting the regulation of hours into this Bill. That is why I ask that this Clause should be defeated. The "Front Populaire" has been quoted. What was the trouble with the "Front Populaire" [An HON. MEMBER: "It was not popular."] I am not so sure about that. I am not going to digress, but I have my own view that if the "Front Populaire" had had more support from this House, France might never have fallen—[Interruption.] Hon. Members provoke me, so they must let me put my spoke in. I am not going to accept that gibe without a protest, especially against a country that we are going to bring back at a later date. This business of throwing mud at other countries is not a wise thing to do. [HON. MEMBERS: "Order."] The "Front Populaire"——

The Deputy-Chairman: I must ask the right hon. Gentleman to leave the "Front Populaire," otherwise I would have to allow other Members to answer him.

Mr. Bevin: I apologise, Mr. Williams. I was a little provoked. I only wanted to reply to the hon. Member. The trouble in New Zealand, in Australia and in France was an attempt to legislate hours in a Bill and not to leave it to joint machinery to settle. That is where the whole thing went wrong. When I had to approach this industry I determined to try and find a means which would give flexibility and which would allow the wages board with common sense and with the facts before them to adjust one set of rest periods for one section of the trade. It is obvious that if you are dealing with the public-house section of the trade you have to regulate your periods of rest largely by the hours of opening. In the luxury hotels you may have shift work, and you can regulate it in another way. And in boarding houses and in seaside resorts you may have to arrange the rest periods in yet another way. In that sense I have allowed the public interest to be brought within the scope of the various wages boards. The Committee will do well to trust these boards to lay down the conditions of rest and comfort for the staff, but I want to make it clear that I cannot be a party to the atrociously long hours—[HON. MEMBERS: "Oh"]—listen to what I am going to say—which the public in many cases, in my opinion, have unreasonably demanded. In many cases the public have demanded from the staff in hotels service at hours which the proprietor has regretted he has been unable to control. No one in this House has spent more years, in hotels than I have. I have been travelling now for 35 years as a trade union official and living in hotels. I have been ashamed sometimes at the demands of some of my own friends upon the proprietors and staffs—unreasonable demands. The period of rest is a very vital thing indeed which I want the wages board to decide.
Lastly, can these good people employed in this trade be excluded from the general development that is going on in regard to industrial health? Industrial health is not limited to the factories as far as I am concerned. I believe that with the free and independent chairman, and the

wages board looking at the thing objectively, both sides having regard to their industry and their industrial needs will arrive at a common-sense arrangement. If something was proposed which was outrageous, can anyone deny that if it was advertised, and advertised it must be—I would remind the Committee that when the wages board puts up a proposal it has to advertise it—and if we were going to ruin any part of the industry, there would not be a yell of protest immediately and the Minister would have to refer it back to the board to consider? Therefore I regard all the protection introduced into this Bill as done deliberately with the intention of avoiding rigidity in the development of this industry. I ask the Committee to reject the proposal in the Clause which has no legal effect at all, to accept the Clause originally proposed and to have confidence in the machinery.

Mr. Craik Henderson: I regret very much the speech which the Minister has just delivered, which is quite irrelevant to the Clause which we were discussing. Our proposal is that the Commission, in exercising their power, should have due regard to the general public interest. There was no need to bring in any sentimental nonsense about people being called upon to work long hours. There was no such suggestion; we were merely asking that such regulations as were brought in should have due regard to the public interest. It is quite possible that employers and employees may see a question from the point of view of the interest of the particular trade, but there is also another interest to be considered—the public interest. Why the Minister should have thought it advisable to indulge in the remarks he made I cannot imagine.

Mr. Leslie: Because of the speeches of the hon. Gentleman's friends.

Question, "That the Clause be read a Second time," put, and negatived.

FIRST SCHEDULE.—(Constitution, Officers and Proceedings of the Commmission.)

The Deputy-Chairman: We now come to the First Schedule, and——

Sir R. Clarry: On a point of Order. Is it your intention, Mr. Williams, not to call the new Clause in my name which comes next on the Order Paper—"Saving as to Licensing Acts and Common Law"?

The Deputy-Chairman: It has not been selected. The first Amendment to the First Schedule which I propose to call is that standing in the name of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Chorley (Sir D. Hacking). From what I can gather, it would seem to be in the interests of the Committee to have a fairly wide and general discussion on that Amendment. Does that meet with the consent of the Committee?

Hon. Members: Agreed.

Captain P. Macdonald: I beg to move, in page 13, line 4, after "of," to insert "eleven."
The object of this Amendment is to ensure that the industry is represented on the Commission. As laid down in the Bill the composition of the Commission is to consist of seven members, and so far as I can make out it is the intention of the Minister that these seven members should be independent members. Whatever may be the merits of having independent Commissions in some industries, a complicated industry like the catering industry, in which there are so many different sections, should be represented, if not by every individual section, at least by some of them. The Amendment recommends that instead of the Commission being composed of seven independent members the number should be 11—four representatives of the employers, four of the employees, with the remaining three independent. It may be argued that even four representatives of the employers or four representatives of the employees would not represent any material section of this industry. It was urged very strongly by the industry itself that the representation should be greater. Examples have been given of the Road Haulage Act and other Acts, where the composition of the Commission has a much greater representation of the industry than the representation for which we are asking. But those who are associated with the Amendment felt it would be unwise to have too unwieldy a Commission, and we have asked for what we consider to be a reasonable number in order that the Commission should be kept advised on the intricacies, implications and complexities of this trade. I think the Minister would be well advised to accept this Amendment. I do not intend to make a long story of it, because we have already thrashed it out with him,

and we have heard his views. I urge him to reconsider his decision. I cannot think that the Minister is anxious that this particular industry, which has so many ramifications and different branches, should have no representation at all on the advisory committee.

Major Petherick: The object of the Amendment moved by my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for the Isle of Wight (Captain P. Macdonald) is, as he says, to have a mixed Commission in place of an independent, or semi-independent, Commission as provided for by the words in the Bill. I did not put my name to this Amendment because, frankly, I am not happy with it as it stands, for various reasons. I think it is right, broadly speaking, to have an independent body or to get as close to that as you can. I should prefer it to be more independent than that which is now provided for by the present words in the Bill. One of the difficulties of a mixed Commission is that it would be too unwieldly if it was to represent all the different sections of this industry, and I think such a Commission would be extremely difficult to work. On the other hand, if it was not too big and you tried to get the different sections represented, it would be difficult to get each section fairly represented. In addition, I think there are two other difficulties. For wages boards you want the best men you can get, but unfortunately it so happens in nearly every trade that the best men in that industry are already engaged in carrying on their own job. They may be in trade unions, or they may be directors, managing directors or managers. The result is that it is very difficult on all these boards and Commissions to get good value. Secondly, there is the difficulty of representing all sections by exactly all the men you want.
So far as I can make out, the catering trade as a whole are rather heavily inclined to a mixed Commission, but mineral water manufacturers, when an association was set up to rationalise their trade a short time ago, were perturbed because it was not an independent body, and they clamoured that it should be independent. So I think we can claim that there is no settled policy as to whether a body of this nature should be independent. We have to take every case on its merits. I entirely agree that


the trade ought to make its views heard and that it ought to be able to give its considered technical views to the Commission. I think we should have a new Clause brought in to provide for setting up an advisory committee of persons solely connected with the trade, representing both employers and employed. You would have to have a fairly large advisory committee, but there are precedents in other Acts of Parliament, not exact analogies, but fairly close to that suggestion.

Mr. Bevin: During the course of the discussions on this Bill I have realised that this is one of the questions, quite apart from support or opposition, which would require review. I am very anxious that the Commission shall remain independent, as stated in the Bill, and the reason I advance for that is that as compared with the Trade Boards Act this Bill provides that the Minister virtually delegates his powers to the Commission. Therefore, if the Commission is to be outside the scope and setting-up of the wages boards and other matters, it is important that it should hold the balance—as it will have to do—between one section and another. It must not be assumed that when you come to deal with the individual interests of these sections there will be the same unanimity as there is in opposition to me. At that stage you will get a division of interests and the clamour for special treatment.
Since I met hon. Members at the now famous, or infamous, meeting at St. James's Square I have been considering in what way I could effectively deal with this problem. If I tried to deal with it by adding to the Commission, it would satisfy nobody, because inevitably somebody would be left out. As can be seen by the formidable list of Amendments on this point, some Members want special representation for one section and others want it for other sections. Therefore, I should be prepared on the Report stage to move a Clause somewhat on the following lines. I do not want to be tied to the actual words. [Interruption.] It is not repentance at all. It shows that at least some hon. Members have an educational value. I do not say which ones. I shall, on the Report stage, move a Clause somewhat on these lines:
The Minister may appoint such number of persons as he thinks fit to act as technical

assessors to the Commission in connection with any investigation or inquiry that the Commission may undertake (being persons who, in the Minister's opinion, have special knowledge of any of the matters which fall within the jurisdiction of the Commission). A technical assessor shall not vote or otherwise be a party to any report or recommendation of the Commission.
The idea is to allow flexibility. If boarding houses are under consideration, there can be technical assessors from that branch, and so with public houses or luxury hotels.

Captain P. Macdonald: By assessors the right hon. Gentleman means advisers?

Mr. Bevin: I think that assessor is a much better term. I want to limit this to the technical side. If I used the word "adviser," I should be immediately called upon to get equal numbers from the various sides, and that is what I want to avoid. I have used the word "assessor" deliberately because I want to bring in people to advise the Commission by giving them technical assistance, from wherever they may come. There is, for instance, a body, a very important one in this respect, called the Seaside Resorts Association. They study very carefully the interests of the local authorities. They may not be boarding-house keepers, but in their corporate capacity they are interested in the wellbeing of their community. They have a point of view to put forward. The words I have suggested would allow other types of people to be called in on the health and welfare side. The purpose is to get a body of technical opinion from wherever I may draw it; it may be councillors, boarding-house keepers or hotel keepers, and so on. Further, I think my proposal would really give the trade a chance to sort itself out and enable the Commission to have before them a helpful body of technical assistance. There is one Amendment on the Order Paper which is extremely important from my point of view, although I am afraid some hon. Members do not credit me with being as serious as I am about the matter. The Amendment proposes that I should put on the Commission somebody who would deal specifically with the tourist traffic. The proposal I have made would allow me to have technical assessors to deal with that particular branch which, from the point of view of employment and exchange problems—I speak not only as Minister of Labour but as a Member of the War


Cabinet—is a very vital matter and one which I do not take lightly. The proposal would allow me to bring in the right class of people to advise the Commission. Therefore, without elaborating the matter any further, I will between now and the Report stage find a wording for the new Clause so as to get the draft right, and I hope it will meet with unanimous agreement, and that the proposal I have made may make it unnecessary for the Amendments on the Order Paper to be moved.

Mr. Colegate: Does the Minister's proposal mean that the Commission will consist of seven entirely independent persons, or does he propose that, in spite of the technical assessors, there shall be two persons representing the employers and two persons representing the employees?

Mr. Bevin: I would stick to the original draft on that point.

Sir W. Smithers: Has my right hon. Friend any idea as to the number of technical assessors there would be? I could not make any suggestion as to the number, because I do not know how many branches of the trade there are, but I take it the Minister would not refuse membership of the board of assessors to any branch of the trade?

Mr. Bevin: I assure the hon. Gentleman that it would be perfectly elastic and would depend upon the subject. The proposal will enable the Commission to have advice from persons familiar with any section of the trade.

Sir H. Williams: I think the Minister has made a most important announcement that will excite very lively satisfaction among the various interests concerned. I hope the Committee will accept the right hon. Gentleman's proposal and not go on with the other Amendments to this Schedule on the Order Paper. That is the advice I would wish to tender to those of my hon. Friends with whom I have been associated. However, this is no reason why we should not discuss the Minister's suggestion in order that he may be helped with regard to the draft he is to make between now and the Report stage. I think the point raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Chislehurst (Sir W. Smithers) has been well answered by the Minister. The assessors are not to be

a permanent body always sitting. There will be the Commission. If the Commission are discussing lodging-house keepers, there will be present the assessors properly representing that interest; I do not mean only the owners of lodging houses, but somebody representing also those employed in the lodging houses. If the Commission are considering the circumstances of what are known as luxury hotels at seaside resorts, there will be somebody present representing their interests and the interests of their employes. The difference between assessors and advisers is this, that the assessors will always be present when the Commission are considering these matters, whereas an advisory committee is a body which sometimes meets and sometimes does not, and very often it falls into desuetude and becomes completely useless. One has only to consider some of the advisory committees attached to various Government Departments to know how useless some of them are. I would like to congratulate the Minister on having chosen the word "assessor." He is quite right.
However, I wonder whether he is right, in view of the very important change he has suggested, in desiring to continue the Commission in its existing form. The idea is to have a Commission of three independent people, with two representing the interests of the employers and two representing the interests of the workers. In view of this change, I think the Minister would be well advised to consider recasting the Commission and making it a purely independent body. Three members would be too few, but probably five independent members would be an adequate number, and they would always have with them the assessors when discussing a particular problem. I am trying to be helpful. I think there is an overwhelming case for making the Commission a completely independent body. There is an example, which is not a very good one, in the body which elects the London Passenger Transport Board—the Appointing Trustees—but they have no continuing responsibility. If the Minister is going to set up a Commission, let it be composed of people who have no interest in their function except the general public interest, and then associate with them the assessors who will come before the Commission openly with their respective axes


to grind. The Minister has made a most important announcement and concession which will relieve a great many anxieties, but I ask him to consider recasting the Commission so that it will consist entirely of independent members.

Mr. Graham White: In common with many other hon. Members, I have felt some anxiety about the composition of the Commission, which is to have very important and varied tasks. I do not know whether even the Minister himself is sufficiently well informed to know exactly the nature of all the tasks that the Commission will have to carry out. I was a little anxious about this matter. It occurred to me that it might be a good idea to adapt the words of the Road Haulage Act and put them into an Amendment to the Schedule, to the effect that the Minister, in making the appointments, should consult with persons who appear to him to have knowledge of the catering trade and also persons on the employees' side. No doubt the right hon. Gentleman considered that idea and it did not seem to him to be a good one. I am bound to say that I think he has devised machinery which should enable the Commission to transact their multifarious business in a most effective way. The industry is an ill-defined and widespread one, and the proposal concerning assessors should meet the wishes and soothe the anxieties of a great many people.

Sir Stanley Reed: Some of my hon. Friends and I have on the Order Paper an Amendment to this Schedule which is specially directed towards including on the Commission on what is known as the employers' side somebody with a knowledge of the tourist traffic. In view of what my right hon. Friend has said and his very frank recognition of the importance of that side of the traffic, I do not propose to press that Amendment, and rest entirely satisfied with his assurance that it will be in his mind when appointing assessors under the Clause which he proposes to move. I am a little doubtful whether the suggestion of the hon. Member for South Croydon (Sir H. Williams) would meet the situation; I am a little doubtful whether the ideal Commission would be one consisting of three totally independent members, or whether it is not a better Commission as is proposed in the Schedule, by means of which there is secured the continuous

presence of the employing interests and the employed interests. There is a considerable difference between an assessor and an adviser. In my experience, advisory boards are usually complete humbugs. They are simply used to cover up under a plethora of advice the final decisions of the executive authority. There is a great deal to be said for preserving the composition of the Commission as laid down in the Schedule rather than attempting to reduce it to three totally independent members, remitting all questions of technical advice to the assessors.
As I understood the Minister, the purpose of having the assessors is to be able at any time to bring in to help the Commission people having special knowledge of one part or other of this very special and diverse industry. There may be 25 or 30 branches of it and the Commission would have specialist advice before them when a special point was under discussion. I attach considerable importance to the fact that, in regard to the decisions of the Commission, there will be at all times representatives of the employers and of the employed rather than merely the detached opinion of assessors, as would be the case if the Commission were reduced to three independent members.
I particularly welcome what was said by my right hon. Friend about his intention to give special importance to the tourist traffic. There are two main facts that ought to be realized. One is the very great value of the tourist traffic, and the other is the scandalous way in which it is neglected. To my mind, the position of the tourist in this country deserves lamentation and tears. I am not thinking of the man who goes to the four or five star hotel, I am looking at the man who goes to the three star hotel or the inn, or even the hostel—and I attach importance to the hostel. If you go up and down the country and try to secure decent accommodation at a three star hotel or an inn, you are absolutely at the mercy of chance. The English inn could be made the best in the world. It may be said there are organisations that are supposed to undertake this work, but their incompetence is so abysmal that no one has ever been able to ascertain its depths.
This will be an important part of the work of the Commission, and I think it will be agreed that this is the ideal time for doing it. Perhaps before the war is over, millions of Americans will have travelled who have never travelled before. Hundreds of thousands of them are coming to this country. If we are to assist them, we shall have to do a great deal more for them than we have done up to now, as well as for the tourist, who should be a welcome visitor and the backbone of a great industry. The right hon. Gentleman may remember the American who said, "You have something to sell in this country which you are not selling, and that is your beauty." You will not sell your beauty unless you can provide a moderate standard of comfort with certainty at a reasonable price. In the circumstances I do not propose to move my Amendment. I am entirely satisfied with the promised new Clause.

Lieut.-Colonel Heneage: There is one question I should like to ask about the assessors. In some cases assessors are only civil servants appointed by a Ministry for special purposes. I should very much like to know the right hon. Gentleman's view on the question of civil servants being appointed as representatives of a trade.

Mr. Bevin: The hon. and gallant Gentleman may be assured that the assessors will not be civil servants.

Commander Bower: We who oppose the Bill have always attached the greatest importance to the composition of the Commission, and it is rather pleasant for us, after wandering for days through the arid desert, confronted by all sorts of mirages which fade away before our eyes, to find this oasis subject to a revision of opinion between now and Report, I think this is a valuable concession which will go a long way to allay a good many anxieties. It has always appeared to me one of the dangers of a Commission of this sort, dealing with such a highly varied industry, that the interests of one part of it might entirely knock out of action some other portion which had not been thought of. The proposal to have assessors who will be called in more or less ad hoc when any particular question arises will be a valuable safeguard against that sort of thing happening. I am inclined to agree with my hon. Friend the

Member for South Croydon (Sir H. Williams), and I hope the Minister will give his remarks a little further consideration before Report. I think the concession is a valuable one, and, if we give it a little thought between now and Report, we may be able to make it even better than the proposal the Minister has put forward.

Sir Douglas Hacking: I see that my name appears at the head of the list of those moving the Amendment. I gave a pledge a few days ago that I would not move any further Amendments, but I hope the Committee will pardon me if I take part in this discussion. So many bouquets have been thrown at the Minister that I hate to be left out. He has made a very important concession, and I believe it will go a long way towards making this a more workable Measure. I shall be glad if he will allow me to express my gratitude for the consideration that he has given to the matter. I take it that he is anxious to keep the same constitution for the Commission as is laid down in the First Schedule. I think he is wise to do that. The Commission will be very largely independent, and there will be no one directly representing even employers or employees, which I think is a good thing, because, if you have direct representation of either, you will get very little satisfaction for the trade as a whole with a small number of representatives, and if you had a large number, the Commission would become unwieldy. I take it that the assessors would be purely ad hoc and would be put in for the consideration of the particular section of the trade under discussion at any one time. On that understanding I again express my thanks to the Minister.

Captain P. Macdonald: As the mover of the Amendment in the absence of my right hon. Friend, I should like to congratulate the Minister on meeting his opponents for the first time in any large measure. We attach very great importance indeed to this part of the Bill. We spent most of the afternoon in discussing this very matter with him in his sanctum in St. James's Square. He was adamant then, and, though he made a small gesture, he did not by any means meet our demands. To-day, out of the blue, he has announced a compromise which we think is a great improvement even on what we suggested, as long as you have assessors who


understand the industry and who are brought in ad hoc to advise on its problems. I hope the right hon. Gentleman will be well advised in the matter of seaside resorts. I think that could be better dealt with by assessors than by having representatives of sections of the industry, who could not be representative of the industry as a whole. I congratulate and thank the right hon. Gentleman for meeting us on a vital point, and I beg to ask leave to withdraw the Amendment.

Major Petherick: This shows the value of a Committee stage. We could not tell whether the right hon. Gentleman was going to make concessions or not, but I think this a very valuable one. It differs from the suggestion that I put forward, but I think it is probably the best way of dealing with the matter. I should like to join my appeal for a reconsideration of the number of independent members of the Commission. I do not believe even now that there should be more than three, but five at the outside.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Schedule agreed to.

Second Schedule agreed to.

Bill reported, with Amendments; as amended, to be considered upon the next Sitting Day, and to be printed [Bill 23].

The remaining Orders were read and postponed.

EMERGENCY POWERS (DEFENCE)

Resolved,
That the China Clay (Charges) Order, 1943, dated 15th March, 1943, made by the Treasury under Section 2 of the Emergency Powers (Defence) Act, 1939, a copy of which was presented to this House on 23rd March, he approved."—[Captain Waterhouse.]

ADJOURNMENT

Resolved, "That this House do now adjourn."—[Major Sir James Edmondson.]